Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Rotherham Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Banbury Waterworks Bill [Lords],

Hertfordshire County Council (Colne Valley Sewerage etc.) Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third Time.

Coatbridge Burgh Extension, etc., Order Confirmation Bill,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Motherwell and Wishaw Burgh Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third Time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER.

Marquess of Titchfield: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether there are any restrictions on the Royal Air Force on the matter of bombing enemy forces on the North-West Frontier of India when British troops are in action?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): Owing to the regrettable illness of my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for India, I have been asked to reply, and also to represent the India Office in this House during his absence.
There are no restrictions on the Royal Air Force in regard to action against hostile tribesmen engaged with our troops.

Miss Wilkinson: Does that mean that our Air Force is instructed or is allowed to bomb women and children belonging to hostile tribes?

Earl Winterton: No, I do not think the hon. Lady can have followed my answer, which dealt with hostile tribesmen engaged with our troops.

FILMS (PROHIBITION).

Mr. Day: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will state from the information in his possession the number of films that have been prohibited from exhibition in India for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and whether he has any knowledge and will give particulars of any alterations that have taken place in the various regulations issued in India for the exhibition of talking films during the previous three years?

Earl Winterton: My Noble Friend will endeavour to obtain this information for the period up to 31st March, 1937.

Mr. Day: Will the Noble Lord also inquire how many of these films are British-produced films, and how many are foreign?

Earl Winterton: There is some difficulty in making too particular an inquiry, because the day-to-day administration of the Cinematograph Act is a matter for the Provincial Governments.

Mr. Macquisten: Are there not a considerable number of films in this country which ought to be prohibited?

DESTROYED REGISTERED LETTER (COMPENSATION).

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian Post Office refuse all responsibility for a registered letter sent from this country to Mr. H. G. Hopkins, serving in His Majesty's Ship "Enterprise," in November last, which was lost in a fire which broke out on the Imperial Indian mail train on 11th December; and whether, in view of the fact that the fire which destroyed this packet cannot definitely be said to have been due to causes beyond the control of the Indian Post Office, he will see that the sender is properly compensated for the loss sustained?

Earl Winterton: My Noble Friend regrets that this is not a case in which he would be justified in interfering with the discretion of the authorities in India.

Mr. Nicholson: While quite understanding that the Department is not legally obliged to pay any compensation for this packet, would my Noble Friend, in view of the hardship caused both to the sender and the expectant recipient, consider making an ex-gratia payment by way of compensation?

Earl Winterton: It will be my duty to convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to my Noble Friend, but the difficulty is that India is bound by the universal Postal Convention, and under that no compensation is payable in respect of any accident which is not caused by the fault of the conveying Government.

Mr. Nicholson: I am merely asking for it as an act of grace.

SPAIN.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether any reply has yet been received from the German Government to the suggestion made by His Majesty's Government on 18th May that there should be an international inquiry into the destruction of Guernica, and to His Majesty's Government's reminder on 28th May that no reply had been received?
(2) whether, in view of the opposition of the Governments of Italy and Portugal to the proposed international inquiry into the destruction of Guernica, this proposal has now been abandoned; and, if so, whether he will give the House the information on the subject received from British consular and diplomatic authorities which he had intended to place at the disposal of the inquiry?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on this subject on 21st June. In view of the position as disclosed therein, which remains unchanged, it has not proved possible to pursue the question of an international inquiry. No British official was present at Guernica at the time of its destruction. His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye has, therefore, received no first-hand evidence from any official under his jurisdiction on which he could base a considered report on the circumstances in which the destruction of Guernica took place.

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any copy of the decrees issued by General Franco abolishing the fiscal autonomy of the Basques and forbidding the use of the Basque language; and whether he can give the House any information on the subject?

Mr. Eden: I have received a translation of a Decree-Law, signed by General Franco at Burgos on 23rd June last, annulling as regards the provinces of Guipuzcoa and Vizcaya the Fiscal Agreement concerted between General Primo de Rivera's Government and the Basque Provinces in 1925, while confirming the maintenance of this Agreement with the Basque province of Alava. I am not aware of the existence of any decree issued by General Franco and forbidding the use of the Basque language.

Mr. Macquisten: If that is the case is not he only following the example of the English Government after Culloden, when they forbade Gaelic and took away the land from the clans?

Mr. Eden: That is perhaps not a very good example.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the fortification by Germany of the coastline adjacent to Gibraltar and to the fact that the guns, which expert opinion assumes are able to dominate the harbour, are only to be dismantled if and when General Franco is victorious in the Spanish war; and whether any assurances have been received by the Government from General Franco on this point?

Mr. Eden: I understand that it is the case that General Franco has installed batteries on the coast between Algeciras and Tarifa. My information does not, however, bear out the Press reports to the effect that German experts have assisted in mounting these batteries. The position is naturally being kept under close review, but I am unable to make any further statement at present.

Mr. Kennedy: Can an answer be given to the last part of my question? Have assurances been given?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, that is covered by the last part of my answer—I cannot add anything at present to that.

Mr. Ede: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whence General Franco obtained the guns which are mounted?

Duchess of Atholl: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the range of the guns?

Mr. Eden: I cannot add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the allegations contained in the controlled Italian Press that this country had intervened in the Spanish war?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member is already aware, His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome was instructed to make representations on the subject to the Italian Government, in the course of which he was to make it clear that these allegations were entirely without foundation. These instructions were duly carried out.

Mr. Henderson: Does that mean that no reply has been received from the Italian Government?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I do not think so.

Mr. Henderson: Do His Majesty's Government intend to press the Italian Government for a reply to their representations, in view of the fact that Signor Mussolini must have had this evidence before him when he wrote the article?

Mr. Eden: I think we have made our position absolutely clear not only on this occasion but in the speech by Lord Plymouth on Friday last, and in my own statement in the country.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not regrettable that the Italian Premier should make a statement— [Interruption].

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in hand between General Franco and British representatives regarding the Bilbao mines; if so, who are the British representatives in question; and whether His Majesty's Ambassador at Hendaye is privy to or taking part in the negotiations?

Mr. Eden: No negotiations regarding the Bilbao mines have, so far as I am

aware, been started between General Franco and representatives of the British interests concerned.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of General Franco's recent statement that the withdrawal of foreign volunteers from Spain is impossible of realisation; and whether representations will be made to him to reconsider his opposition?

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made in securing the withdrawal from the theatre of the Spanish civil war of all non-Spanish nationals?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Members will be aware, at the Plenary meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee held on Friday last—I am answering a Private Notice Question on this at the end of Questions—His Majesty's Government were entrusted by the Committee with a discretionary mandate to continue negotiations for a solution of the present situation. They are at present actively engaged on this task, and I should prefer at the moment not to make any statement on individual points affecting the principle of non-intervention as a whole.

Mr. Henderson: Will not the Foreign Secretary answer the particular point contained in my question?

Mr. Eden: I really do not think that it does arise out of the negotiations as a whole, and I do not want to go into the details before the House has heard what I have to say.

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not the case that the Spanish Government naturalised all who were volunteers on their behalf?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to set any precedent of granting belligerent rights to insurgent forces against a duly elected government?

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. Numerous precedents already exist for the recognition by His Majesty's Government, should they think fit, as belligerents, of insurgents against the constitutional government of a country.

Miss Wilkinson: Would not this be tantamount to a recognition of piracy, while a civil war is going on?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does not this question, like many others, suffer from a confusion of mind which believes that the granting of belligerent rights is a favour, and not the recognition of a fact?

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Franco has consented to receive a British Consul at Bilbao, and on what terms?

Mr. Eden: As the House will be aware, His Majesty's Consul left Bilbao shortly before its capture by General Franco's forces. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government that a Consul should return to Bilbao as soon as possible and an official has, in fact, already proceeded to that city in order to take possession of the Consular offices and archives.

Mr. Benn: Is it not true that General Franco has refused to permit a Consul to function in Bilbao unless he receives belligerent rights?

Mr. Eden: I understand that that is not so.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as British ships are clearing daily for Spanish ports, he will instruct, as distinct from advising, them if they are or are not entitled to enter Spanish territorial waters; and, if they are so entitled, issue instructions to ships of His Majesty's Navy to afford all necessary protection against interference by rebel naval forces to British ships inside Spanish territorial waters to enable them to execute their lawful sailing orders?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): The function of the Admiralty so far as communications with merchant shipping are concerned, is confined to giving information as to the state of affairs actually existing off the coast of Spain and practical advice based on that information. As regards the protection of British merchant ships inside Spanish territorial waters, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I am giving to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), that as regards protection inside territorial waters, I have nothing to add to the answer given by my predecessor.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it, or is it not the case that the rebel Spanish Naval Forces have no right to interfere with British shipping inside or outside Spanish territorial waters?

Mr. Cooper: That is not a question on which I could give a ruling. It should not be addressed to the Admiralty.

Miss Wilkinson: When the right hon. Gentleman gets information from his observers, would he be prepared to hand it over to the Foreign Office, which consistently gives the answer that it has no information as to what is happening in these waters?

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in contradiction of the assurance given on 21st April, the "Almirante Cervera" fired from outside territorial waters on a ship inside territorial waters? Is not that a violation of what the First Lord stated, and what action is going to be taken about it?

Mr. Cooper: The "Almirante Cervera" did not fire on a British ship. She fired across her bows in order to exercise control over her.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: At the time she fired this shot, was she outside the three-mile limit?

Mr. Cooper: The British ship was inside the three-mile limit.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: As the protection of British shipping is the function of the Admiralty, is it not the duty of the Admiralty to inform itself how the law stands on this question of the protection of British shipping inside and outside Spanish territorial waters?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better have one question at a time.

Mr. Cooper: As the hon. and gallant Gentleman is well aware, the legal questions that arise out of the present situation in Spain are extremely complicated. I doubt whether an international jurist could give a ruling as to the exact position. I am not prepared to give such a ruling, and I do not think it is my business to do so.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had a ruling on this point, on what ground has he decided to allow General Franco to exercise belligerent rights and prevent British ships from entering Spanish ports?

Mr. Cooper: The position with regard to territorial waters has been perfectly plain from the first. We have never extended British protection to British ships inside territorial waters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this question.

Mr. Denville: On a point of Order. Are my hon. Friends opposite not allowed to put supplementary questions?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: (for Mr. Bellenger) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he accepts the contention of the Spanish insurgent authorities that His Majesty's Ship "Hunter" was damaged by a mine moored in territorial waters; and whether any further communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Spanish insurgent authorities on this subject?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government do not accept the contention that this ship was damaged by a mine moored in territorial waters. The question of a claim for compensation is now under consideration. While this is being examined between the Departments concerned no further communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the insurgent authorities.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it the case that the full cost of the damage has not yet been ascertained?

Mr. Eden: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the present position with regard to Non-Intervention.

Mr. Eden: As the House is aware, a plenary meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee was held on Friday last. The committee had before them the proposals submitted by the French and United Kingdom

Governments and by the German and Italian Governments respectively for filling the existing gap in the work of the international naval patrol off the coasts of Spain. A general discussion took place, in the course of which it became clear that no agreement could be reached in favour of either set of proposals. The representatives of the French and United Kingdom Governments and of the German and Italian Governments maintained the respective points of view of their Governments. In reply to certain criticisms which were levelled against His Majesty's Government, Lord Plymouth stated that, if all the other Powers had observed the Non-Intervention Agreements in the letter and the spirit, as His Majesty's Government had done, the position in Spain would now be very different. The representatives of a number of other countries expressed the views of their Governments, which emphasised the importance of maintaining the principle of non-intervention and were generally in favour of the Franco-British proposals. The chairman made it clear that His Majesty's Government were ready to consider any practical proposals which might be put forward.
At the close of the meeting, the committee unanimously agreed, on the proposal of the representative of the Netherlands, that a mandate to seek agreement should be entrusted to His Majesty's Government. While conscious of the difficulty of their task and of the fact that its realisation must depend upon a greatly increased measure of international cooperation, His Majesty's Government considered it their duty to accept this mandate. They are fully aware of the urgency of the problem and are at present actively engaged in the necessary work. It is, in any event, the intention of His Majesty's Government to make a report to the Non-Intervention Committee this week.
The French Government have announced that, as from to-morrow, they will suspend the control facilities now afforded to foreign observers on the Franco-Spanish frontier, unless the control on the Portuguese frontier has previously been re-established. I understand, however, that the observers will be allowed to remain at their posts and that the relevant French decrees still remain in force.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any time limit for these further discussions, in view of the fact that the continuance of a one-sided non-intervention endangers peace and is unfair to the Spanish Government?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the question of a time limit was raised in the Committee, but the Committee preferred not to fix one, and to leave the matter with His Majesty's Government. I can, however, assure the House that we are fully alive to the need for urgency in attempting to meet the situation, and that is why I have stated that in any event, we shall make a report to the Committee this week.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of the proposals now proposed to be made, in view of the complete disagreement between the Powers and the complete breakdown of non-intervention?

Mr. Eden: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can really ask me to do that at this stage. We have been given this mandate. We shall exercise it as rapidly and as efficiently as we can. Of course, we shall make a report to the Committee which has charged us with this mandate, at the first possible moment.

Duchess of Atholl: In exercising this extremely important mandate will my right hon. Friend bear in mind what he said in March as to the urgency of getting non-Spaniards out of Spain at the earliest possible moment, and also the importance of establishing air control as well as naval control if the scheme is to be an impartial one?

Mr. Eden: The Noble Lady can rest assured that we are fully alive to the importance of those matters.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask whether the decision of the French Government to suspend control of their frontier meets with the full approval of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Eden: Lord Plymouth has already explained to the Committee that in our view the French action is reasonable in view of what has happened on the Portuguese frontier.

Mr. Attlee: Will His Majesty's Government also take action with a view to

restoring to the Spanish Government its full rights?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The French Government have not done that. Their frontier remains closed. All that they have done is to withdraw the facilities for observers, because the Portuguese Government have done so. The frontier remains closed.

Mr. Attlee: I know, but will not the right hon. Gentleman urge that steps should be taken to restore their rights to the Spanish Government instead of allowing, in effect, a one-sided control to be kept on week after week?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman and the House must appreciate that having been charged with this task by 27 nations, we had no alternative but to refuse it or to do our best to realise it rapidly. We have chosen the latter course.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect the French intended action to suspend the control is calculated to have?

Mr. Eden: I think the French Government felt that the Portuguese Government having suspended observers from their duties for the time being, they were entitled to take similar action.

Captain Heilgers: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the observers will continue to make their reports to the appropriate authority?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I should imagine not.

BRAZIL AND MEXICO (BRITISH INVESTORS).

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the losses suffered by British holders of the defaulted obligations of the public authorities of Brazil and Mexico, notwithstanding the long-continued but unsuccessful efforts of the Council of Foreign Bondholders on behalf of the issuing houses to obtain redress, he will now, on behalf of the unorganised body of British small investors in Brazilian and Mexican paper securities, take the position in hand officially with the two Governments concerned?

Mr. Eden: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Council of Foreign Bondholders are the recognised representatives of British holders of foreign securities. Any request from the Council for assistance would naturally be examined sympathetically by His Majesty's Government, but so far no such request has been received.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: In view of the fact that this question has been asked several times, if I put the question down again will my right hon. Friend be able to give me a fuller answer?

Mr. Eden: The position is that the Government are perfectly ready to give any help they can, but they must first be asked for that help by the authorised body, the Council of the Foreign Bondholders; otherwise we may do more harm than good.

Mr. Liddall: asked (1) the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will notify the Brazilian Government that the continued hardships inflicted on British savings invested for the development of Brazilian resources can now be adjusted by using an Anglo-Brazilian exchange clearing, in view of the fact that Anglo-Brazilian trade has since March, 1935, been in the ratio of £7 of Brazilian imports into the United Kingdom as against £10 United Kingdom total exports to Brazil;
(2) the President of the Board of Trade whether he will obtain from the British Chamber of Commerce for San Paulo and Southern Brazil a translation of the proposals for a permanent partial repudiation of foreign debt contracts just published by Senor Boucas; and will he take immediate steps to defend British savings against this treatment by increased customs duties on Brazilian products?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I have been asked to reply. I understand that the proposals referred to in the second question were made by Senor Boucas in a personal capacity, and that conversations are proceeding satisfactorily between the responsible Brazilian authorities and representatives of the bondholders. The question of taking steps to protect the interests of British investors does not, therefore, at present arise. In regard to the question of clearing arrangements, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the

hon. Member for Newcastle-on--Tyne, North (Sir N. Gratton-Doyle), on 23rd June, 1936.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can say anything about the recent Sino-Japanese fighting near Peking; and whether it is proposed to make representations in respect of the Japanese field exercises taking place in the neighbourhood of Peking?

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the clash between Japanese and Chinese outside Peking?

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the serious effect of the fighting in Northern China on the Lancashire export trade in cotton textiles, he can state what possibility exists of re-establishing order at an early date; and whether some action can be taken to avoid this constant tension between China and Japan on Chinese territory?

Mr. McEntee: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the fighting in North China; how it arose; and what has happened?

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the international position in Northern China as the result of which serious fighting has occurred between the Chinese and Japanese; what is the reason for the presence of such large numbers of Japanese troops on Chinese territory; and whether, in the interests of peace and amity, he will ascertain whether the current Anglo-Japanese conversations in London can be used to remove this constant source of friction and hindrance to the restoration of improved international trade?

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fighting between Japanese and Chinese troops on the eve of the start of the Anglo-Japanese conversations in London: and whether in any case he will ensure that this outbreak is not used for the purpose of consolidating a new Japanese claim against China?

Mr. Eden: The following is a summary of the information which has so far reached me but which is naturally somewhat incomplete. Japanese troops holding manoeuvres near Lukouchiao, west of Peking, came into conflict during the night 7th-8th July with a battalion of the Chinese 29th Army garrisoning that town. There was considerable firing, Chinese from Nanyuan and Japanese from Tungchow, east of Peking, joining in the fray. Each side charged the other with provocation. The Japanese demanded that the Chinese troops should evacuate Lukouchiao and retire to the west of the river which flows past that town. The Chinese are reported to have done this, and, according to Press reports, have agreed to replace the regular military units east of the river by militia on the understanding that the Japanese troops should withdraw to the neighbourhood of Fengtai further east pending a settlement. Subsequently, both sides accused the other of infringing the terms of the truce and intermittent fighting has taken place. My latest information, received this morning, was that Pekin itself was quiet and that there was no news of further fighting. Under the terms of Article 9 of the Protocol of 7th September, 1901, Japan and other foreign Powers are entitled to station troops at certain points in North China in order to keep open free communication between Peking and the sea. The number of Japanese troops in North China is believed to amount to several thousand—so far as we know, it is about 7,000. The possible repercussions on British interests, and on international trade generally, of tension between China and Japan, is fully recognised. I would add, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Captain Plugge), that, if Anglo-Japanese conversation develop in London, that would evidently afford an opportunity of discussing these events with the Japanese Ambassador. It is the earnest desire of His Majesty's Government that there should be a settlement not only of the present dispute but of the difficulties existing generally between China and Japan.

Mr. Henderson: May it not be mainly clue to the fact that the Japanese authorities have persisted in holding manoeuvres close to Peking and that that is the source of the provocation; and could not we make friendly representations to

the Japanese Ambassador as to the undesirability of carrying out such a policy?

Mr. Eden: It is extremely complicated, and I would rather not pronounce upon it, but I am sure the whole House would agree that we ought to exert ourselves to try to prevent this situation becoming more serious.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that, under Article 9 of the Protocol, international agreement is required in reference to the stationing of these troops, and have the Government been consulted about the excessive quantity and the nature of these exercises?

Mr. Eden: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right about the place of stationing, but not about the numbers. That is one of the complexities.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be as well if the Chinese drove all these people out of their country?

Mr. Chorlton: What other special steps have been taken to look after British trade interests in the area, in the present situation?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend would put that question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider entering into consultation with the United States Government in regard to this incident?

Mr. Eden: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be sure that that is the kind of consideration which is very present to my mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

ITALIAN BROADCASTS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any reply to his representations to the Italian Government concerning radio propaganda in Palestine?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further statement to make with regard to the broadcasts from Bari?

Mr. Eden: On 6th July I informed the Italian Ambassador of the impending publication of the Report of the Royal


Commission on Palestine and expressed the hope that the Italian Government would co-operate by avoiding the issue from the Bari broadcasting station of any unfriendly comments. On 8th July, the Italian Ambassador communicated to me a personal message from Signor Mussolini to the effect that the Italian Government had taken all possible steps in order to meet the wish of His Majesty's Government and to prove their desire to ease the situation. On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I expressed gratification, which I am sure will be generally shared, at the receipt of this message. From information so far received, the undertaking given by Signor Mussolini has been fully carried out.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has already been a broadcast from Bari criticising the report and describing it as "an ill-omened document"?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Sir A. Sinclair: Is it not a fact that the Report of the Commission was described on the Bari wireless as "an ill-omened document"? If the right hon. Gentleman does not know, will he please inquire?

Mr. Eden: I will certainly do so, but, from the reports which I have received, that adjective did not appear. I would like to look into it; I have had no notice of it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the Supplementary Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman proves incorrect, can no steps be taken against those responsible for putting such questions?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman inquire why such attacks were ever made over the State-controlled radio in Italy?

Mr. Eden: I think the House will agree with the action that the Government took, and we must await the result. I have no knowledge so far of any cause of complaint.

Colonel Wedgwood: Can we not jam the radio from Bari?

ROYAL COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will,

for the convenience of hon. Members, place in the Tea Room as early as possible a relief map of Palestine and Transjordan showing thereon the suggested mandated areas, Jewish state, Arab state, and Aqaba enclave?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I will certainly consider the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion for the provision of a relief map, but I fear that it would not be practicable to show the areas in question with sufficient accuracy on such a map until it has been possible to arrive at a much more exact definition of the boundaries than is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission.

Colonel Nathan: Will not the right hon. Gentleman represent on the suggested relief map the boundaries as disclosed in the map annexed to the Report upon which the recommendations of the Royal Commission are founded?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The map drawn in the Report is a sketch, and I am quite sure misunderstanding would arise on both sides if you had a large scale map on a matter upon which they say advisedly that a boundary commission should be set up.

Colonel Wedgwood: When are we going to get the boundary commission?

Mr. De Chair: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Palestine in such a way that the proposed independent Arab and Jewish states shall cease to be parts of the British Empire?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Palestine has never been a part of the British Empire. As regards the intentions of His Majesty's Government, I must refer my hon. Friend to the Government's published Statement of Policy, to which I am unable to add.

Mr. De Chair: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Article 1 of the Mandate confers upon us full powers of administration and legislation, and that therefore the mandated territory for poliical and strategical purposes, is part of the Empire?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is certainly not so. If my hon. Friend will read the


other articles of the Mandate and the Preamble, and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, he will see that he is wrong.

Commander Locker-Lampson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not a great mistake that His Majesty's Government should take their marching orders from Signor Mussolini in this respect?

Colonel Nathan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons why the memoranda and minutes of public evidence expressly stated by the Royal Commission on Palestine, at page xii of their report, as having been prepared to accompany the report, were not issued with the report; when they will be issued; whether they will be placed before the Permanent Mandates Commission by His Majesty's Government at the same time as the report; and whether the Permanent Mandates Commission will have before it the minutes of the evidence of the 53 witnesses stated at page x of the report to have been heard in private?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think that the passage in the report of the Royal Commission to which the hon. and gallant Member refers necessarily means that the memoranda and minutes of public evidence would be published simultaneously with the report. Owing to the short time available this was in any case quite impracticable. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 8th July. The answers to the third and fourth parts of the question are in the negative.

Colonel Nathan: Is it to be assumed that the Permanent Mandates Commission is to be invited by His Majesty's Government to make a decision upon a matter of such importance and difficulty without having an opportunity of having before it the evidence upon which His Majesty's Government have based their Statement of Policy, and upon which the recommendations of the Royal Commission were made?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is clearly at fault. His Majesty's Government have not, and will not see, the confidential evidence which was given solely to the Royal

Commission in confidence, and which is always kept under seal. It will not be given to me, and it cannot be given to the Permanent Mandates Commission. The Permanent Mandates Commission is not asked for a decision, but always to advise the Council of the League, which alone has the power to take a decision.

Colonel Nathan: Will the Permanent Mandates Commission have before it the evidence which the Royal Commission expressly states that it has prepared, namely, the public evidence and the memorandum, and will it have it when it meets at the end of July at the same time as it has the recommendations of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, nobody will have it. It will not be printed by then. The report is so full and so exhaustive and contains all the material facts, that I am quite sure it would be superfluous.

An Hon. Member: Will it be available to this House?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly, Sir, as soon as it is printed.

Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea when the minutes of evidence will be published?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: They are printing them as fast as they can. It is very voluminous, an enormous mass of material, and I think it will be ready in about a month's time.

DEAD SEA SALTS CONCESSION.

Mr. Groves: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the date and the details of the concessions for the extraction of salts from the waters of the Dead Sea?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The concession for the extraction of salts and minerals in the Dead Sea, the date of which is 1st July, 1930, will be found printed in full as Appendix II to the Annual Report on Palestine and Transjordan for the year 1929. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

SPANISH REFUGEE CHILDREN.

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precise information is being sought from the


Ambassador at Hendaye as to the Spanish refugee children in this country?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that the committee responsible for the care of these refugees has undertaken to arrange for their repatriation as soon as circumstances will permit. His Majesty's Ambassador has been requested to furnish His Majesty's Government with such information as he is able to obtain with a view to assisting them in deciding whether these conditions are now present or are likely to be so in the near future.

Miss Rathbone: As His Majesty's Government have no representatives in the Basque country, or within 100 miles of Bilbao, on what information will the Ambassador base his report, if not on Press reports?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not hear my answer that a consular officer is now in Bilbao.

Mr. Crossley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in granting permission to Basque children to land in this country, it was made a condition that on application from their parents for their return their licences to live in this country should be revoked?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): There was no occasion for imposing such a specific condition. The children were admitted to this country on the general guarantee of the voluntary committee that it would be responsible for their maintenance while in this country and would repatriate them as soon as circumstances permitted. Any request from individuals that particular children may be sent back to Spain would be a matter to be dealt with by the committee.

Mr. Crossley: Is my hon. Friend perfectly satisfied that there are not various amiable people in this country who intend to kidnap these children?

Duchess of Atholl: Is it not the fact that one child has already been sent back by the committee on the result of a bona fide application from its parents?

Mr. Lloyd: I think so.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can give the House any information as to the demand made by him from an ex-service man for £25 12s. 6d. for medical treatment which was authorised and sanctioned by the Ministry; whether he is aware that the man is under the control of the East Ham Pension Committee and has been entitled to insured medical benefit since July, 1931; why the payment is now demanded; whether he is aware that the committee declare that the demand is illegal; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): The Royal Warrants allow me to bear only such expenses of treatment as are not otherwise provided for Periodical payments of medicines obtained by this officer have been made on the written undertaking given by him that, if he became eligible under the National Health Insurance Acts, he would inform the Ministry. It has recently been disclosed by him that he has been so eligible since July, 1931, and, at the officer's request, the Ministry is prepared to postpone recovery of the charges which were improperly imposed on public funds until September next, when deductions from pension by small quarterly payments will commence.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Sir William Wayland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that tithepayers, as a condition of obtaining remission of excessive tithe, are being required to answer questions which, in many cases, they cannot answer—for example, to state in what tithe district the land it situate, although they have no information regarding tithe districts; and, further, to state the numbers of the tithe areas, although the tithe apportionments are not in the possession of the tithepayers nor readily available for their inspection; and whether he will take steps to secure that the county, parish, and ordnance survey numbers be accepted as a sufficient description of lands in respect of which a certificate of annual value is required.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I have been asked to reply. The particulars required


to be given are prescribed by the Redemption Annuities Rules, 1936, made by the Tithe Redemption Commission under the Tithe Act, 1936. Should information regarding the tithe areas concerned not already be in the possession of land-owners, it can be obtained by inspecting the local copies of the instruments of tithe apportionment in the parish, where they are normally in the custody of the incumbents and churchwardens.

Sir W. Wayland: Is there any objection to the ordinary ordnance maps being accepted? They are very easy to obtain; they can be purchased anywhere.

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: This information is required by the provisions of the Act. If my hon. Friend knows of any case in which the information cannot be obtained, perhaps he will let me know.

FISH (CONSUMPTION).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether statistics show any increase in the popular consumption of fish.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 9th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Thurtle: What does the Minister of Agriculture understand by "the popular consumption of fish?"

Mr. Morrison: The consumption of fish by the people.

Mr. Gallacher: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the quantity of herring eaten by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby)?

CROMWELL GARDENS, SOUTH KENSINGTON (SITE).

Sir William Davison: asked the First Commissioner of Works under what circumstances the island site, 1 to 7, Cromwell Gardens, South Kensington, immediately opposite the Victoria and Albert Museum, is to be sold; and whether the possibility of its future usefulness in connection with the museum has been considered?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): This site was bought

before the War for the erection of new buildings for the Royal College of Art. The report of the Committee on Advanced Art Education in London envisages the provision of buildings for the college of a type and on a scale for which the Cromwell Gardens site is quite unsuited. Very careful consideration has been given to the possibility of using the site in connection with the Victoria and Albert Museum, or for other Government purposes, but there does not appear to be to be any such use for which the site would be suitable. The site has, therefore, been advertised for sale.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Shakespeare Memorial Committee, consisting of representative men and women of all parties, are very anxious to acquire this island site as a site for a national theatre; and will the application of a public body of this kind receive favourable consideration?

Sir P. Sassoon: As I mentioned in my answer, the Government decided that this site should be advertised for sale by sealed tender. It was originally bought for the Royal College of Art, and, in the event of its now being sold, the proceeds of the sale will be some set-off against the provision of the new College of Art.

Sir W. Davison: The advertisement says that the Government will not necessarily take the highest tender. Is it not desirable, in the case of a Government site of this kind, opposite a great Government building, that a body desiring it for a public purpose should receive special consideration?

Sir P. Sassoon: Now that it has been advertised for sale by sealed tender, I do not think I am in a position to do otherwise than accept the highest offer if that is satisfactory.

Mr. Crossley: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a national theatre could not possibly succeed in South Kensington?

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE, BOROUGH.

Mr. Day: asked the First Commissioner of Works when it is proposed to commence building operations on the


Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange?

Sir P. Sassoon: I regret that it is not yet possible to state when building operations on the new Borough Employment Exchange are likely to commence, but the hon. Member may be assured that every effort is being made to expedite the scheme for a new Employment Exchange.

Mr. Day: In view of the fact that 18 months ago the right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Minister of Labour, stated that plans were in course of preparation, cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some more definite statement?

Sir P. Sassoon: As the hon. Member knows, we have had difficulty in finding a site. Perhaps he can help us.

NATIONAL ART GALLERIES.

Mr. Kelly: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether consideration has been given to air conditioning, relative humidity, and temperature at the National Gallery and Tate Gallery on the lines of that carried out at Hampton Court by the Office of Works?

Sir P. Sassoon: Consideration has been given to the question of installing an air conditioning system at the National Galleries, but no concrete scheme has yet been prepared. I may say that the conditions in the Orangery at Hampton Court are totally different from those in the National Galleries, and the system in operation at Hampton Court is not applicable.

Mr. Kelly: Is consideration being given to the urgency of the question of air conditioning, particularly at the Tate Gallery, which is now left with varying atmospheres, to the detriment of all that it contains?

Sir P. Sassooon: Full consideration is being given to the matter, but, as I have said, the system that is in operation at Hampton Court is not applicable to the National Galleries.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Tate Gallery is finished with, will consideration be given to the question of air conditioning here, where there are objects of art which are suffering very much?

POST OFFICE, COTTERIDGE KING'S NORTON.

Mr. Cartland: asked the First Commissioner of Works why, in view of the fact that the site was purchased in May and that the plans for the building have been approved, it is not proposed to start building operations on the new Crown post office at Cotteridge, King's Norton, until the new year?

Sir P. Sassoon: Before building operations can be commenced, it is necessary to prepare working drawings and bills of quantities and to obtain and examine tenders. These operations necessarily occupy a considerable time, and I regret that it will not be practicable to commence building before next spring.

Mr. Cartland: May I ask my right hon. Friend what he means by "next spring"?

Sir P. Sassoon: Early next year.

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how many of the Geological Survey personnel are actually employed in the field?

Earl Winterton: Forty-seven members of the staff of the Geological Survey and Museum are regularly employed in the field. Twenty others, normally engaged in the headquarters of the Survey and Museum, undertake inspection work or special duty in the field as occasion requires.

Mr. Kelly: Is there any intention to increase the staff?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir. My noble Friend the Lord President does not contemplate any such increase; there is no reason for such an increase.

STEEL SUPPLIES.

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the shortage of steel supply, he will establish a priority board for the purpose of allocating the available supply to the purposes for which it is most required in the national interests?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The British Iron and Steel Federation has taken steps through its affiliated associations to ensure, so far as practicable, an equitable distribution of the available supplies of iron and steel with due regard to urgent requirements. My right hon. Friend does not think that in the circumstances the appointment of such a body as is suggested by my hon. Friend would be justified.

Miss Wilkinson: Will not the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer contains so many qualifications mean that the Iron and Steel Trade Federation can do precisely what it likes; and is it not necessary to have some priority board representing interests other than the Iron and Steel Trade Federation?

Captain Wallace: No, Sir, I do not think that that would be so. Such a scheme could not come into operation for some months. Legislation would be necessary to make it operate effectively, and I do not imagine that anybody would be satisfied with it if it did come into operation.

Mr. Shinwell: Did not the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in their recent report, make a recommendation to the effect that an independent body should be established for this purpose; and does it in fact require legislation? Is it not within the power of the Iron and Steel Federation to agree at once to the establishment of such an independent body?

Captain Wallace: That is a different question, of which I should require notice.

TRANS-ATLANTIC AIR SERVICES.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the movements of the flying boats engaged in the experimental trans-Atlantic air services are reported regularly to all the ships on the trans-Atlantic route so that, in an emergency, they may be able to render assistance?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): On the recent flight the movement of the "Caledonia" was not reported regularly during the flight to ships on the trans-Atlantic route. Ships were warned by broadcast of the route, time of departure and ground speed

of the aircraft, and the positions of ships likely to be in the vicinity were communicated to the aircraft before the flight commenced. A distress procedure was concerted with the Admiralty and the General Post Office to ensure that prompt assistance would be rendered if called for.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the increasing improvement of aircraft and the danger to the food communications of Great Britain in time of war, he will consider the appointment of a further committee to examine the possibilities and advantages of building a Channel tunnel between Great Britain and the Continent?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I have nothing to add to the reply given to a similar question by he hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on 15th March last.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand from that, that the Government are not prepared to reconsider the question?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that would be a not unreasonable assumption.

INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Prime Minister the general principles of economic policy to which His Majesty's Government have agreed with M. Van Zeeland that the latter should seek the agreement of a number of, and which, States?

The Prime Minister: As the principles in question have not yet been stated in a form agreed upon between M. Van Zeeland and His Majesty's Government, I am unable at present to add to the reply given on 7th July to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson).

Colonel Nathan: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement on these large principles before the House rises for the vacation?

The Prime Minister: I could not say yet.

INDUSTRIAL POPULATION DISTRIBUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION).

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he is satisfied


that all the individuals appointed to serve on the Industrial Population Distribution Royal Commission are fully qualified to deal with an inquiry into the problem of the distribution of the industrial population; and whether he is prepared to reconsider his selection and revise the constitution of the commission;

(2) why no woman who would be representative of the industrial population has been appointed to serve on the Industrial Population Distribution Royal Commission; and whether he will take steps to repair this omission?

The Prime Minister: The persons appointed to serve on the Royal Commission have not been chosen as representative of particular interests. It will be open to the commission to take evidence from any interests concerned, and I am satisfied that they are individually well qualified to carry out their task.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the two women who are appointed come from London and from Oxfordshire? Is it not essential that a woman coming from some other part of the country more representative of the industrial classes should be upon this commission in addition? Is it not the case that the members of this commission are taken up with academic and not actual practical matters?

The Prime Minister: I should not call them academic matters. I think the two ladies in question, who come from the places named by the hon. Member, are particularly well qualified to assist in an investigation of this kind by reason of their past experience.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that very few people have heard of them before?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

TORPEDO FACTORY, GREENOCK (WAGE DEDUCTIONS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the cost of making the weekly deductions for sport from the wages of the unestablished workers at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory at Greenock; what would be the additional cost of making a further deduction from the wages of these workers for hospital fund purposes; and whether he has any

statement to make as to when arrangements will be made for the making of such deductions for hospital fund purposes?

Mr. Cooper: It is not possible to state the cost of making weekly deductions from the wages of workpeople at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock. The work is carried out as part of the ordinary duty of calculating and issuing wages; clearly, however, some extra work is involved for each transaction and the total is directly proportionate to the number of objects for which deductions are made, and the number of contributors. As regards the third part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on 27th January last.

Mr. Gibson: Is it the case that an additional deduction for hospital fund purposes would be a small matter?

Mr. Cooper: I think it would be a small matter.

Mr. Gibson: If that is the case, will the First Lord keep in mind that the Greenock Royal Infirmary is losing a great deal every month because this deduction is not made from these workers, whereas at every other works in Greenock run by private owners such deductions are made? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for this deduction to be made?

Mr. Cooper: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

MOTOR-TORPEDO BOATS.

Mr. Chorlton: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the present position in numbers, etc., of the high-speed motor-torpedo boats, also a comparison with the speed of similar boats in other navies; whether any of these craft are fitted or will be fitted with heavy oil-engines, and, if so, will the design and manufacture be of this country; and what is the estimated total number of boats that will be available by the end of the year?

Mr. Cooper: In addition to a number of experimental boats, three flotillas of six boats each have been authorised. The first flotilla has been successfully completed and is now on passage to Malta.


The second flotilla is well on its way to completion, and the third flotilla will be ordered shortly. In sea-keeping qualities, endurance and speed, these boats, it is believed, compare favourably with those of the same type belonging to other navies. They are not fitted with heavy oil engines, but the development of such an engine is being actively pursued and is in the hands of a British engineering firm.

Mr. Chorlton: What is the number that we have in comparison with the Mediterranean Powers?

Mr. Cooper: I should require notice of that question.

EDUCATION (LOCAL EXPENDITURE).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the resolution passed by the Association of Education Committees on 9th June, and sent to him, requesting the Board to appoint a representative departmental committee to consider the question of a grant in aid of local expenditure on education; and, in view of the fact that education authorities are dissatisfied with the present system of grants which, in the majority of areas, cast an unfair burden on local ratepayers, whether he will give an undertaking that a representative committee will be set up without delay?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend has invited the Association of Education Committees to appoint a small committee to discuss with officers of his Department the practical difficulties of the present situation.

BRITISH ARMY (FRESH FRUIT SUPPLY).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take some steps to make available a supply of fresh fruit, such as plums, etc., for the Regular and Territorial forces during August when supplies of home-grown fruit are plentiful and cheap?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): Part of the daily ration of both Regular and Territorial soldiers is issued in the form of a cash allowance, and Commanding Officers can purchase fresh fruit from this allowance at their discretion. They have every facility for doing so, including advance information from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes when there is likely to be a plentiful supply of any particular fruit.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Minister aware that "An apple a day keeps the doctor away"; and could he not see the Flowers, Plants and Vegetables Publicity Committee with a view to increasing the consumption of fruit?

CHILD ADOPTION.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary when the Government intend to deal with the report of the Home Office Committee in connection with the methods of adoption societies and agencies; and whether it is intended to bring in a Bill to deal with the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has not yet had time to consider fully the committee's recommendations, and I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that certain local authorities have suspended action in connection with their air-raid precautions schemes, pending a discussion as to the amount of the cost of such schemes to be borne by the National Exchequer; and, in view of the vital necessity for the completion of such schemes, whether he can give an early reply to the requests made by the local authorities in this matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on Wednesday last by my right hon. Friend to a question by the hon. Member for Pontypool {Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Bossom: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, as so many of these authorities are anxious to go ahead, will be get his Department at least to co-operate with them?

CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.

Mr. MacEntee: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to apply the principle enunciated in paragraph 55 of the Report of the Reorganisation Committee of the National Whitley Council of the Civil Service, namely, that permanent employment should be upon a pensionable footing, to the case of Government messengers who are permanently employed?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: In the paragraph in question the committee called special attention to certain cardinal elements in the revised scheme which they had devised for the recruitment and classification of the administrative and clerical branches of the Civil Service. Their recommendations did not relate to messengerial and allied grades where different circumstances obtain.

Mr. McEntee: Is not the fact that this is a lowly grade, the only different circumstance; and, in view of the Minister's power to grant pensions to men in this grade of the Service, will he not take such steps in favour of these men?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The messengerial staff is in general, as I think the hon. Member knows, organised in two grades, the higher of which is established, and members of the lower grade are eligible for promotion to the higher grade. I cannot recommend departure from that arrangement.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the case of civil servants who have recently become established for purposes of pension, he will consider increasing the age limit of admission to pensions schemes from 50 to 55 years, in accordance with the age of admission to voluntary contributory pensions?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to those employés who have not been established. The age at which civil servants may be called upon to retire on grounds of age is 60, and the minimum period of service which qualifies for pension is 10 years. While the normal limit of age for establishment is 50 or a lower age, unestablished employés have, in certain circumstances, been admitted to the pensionable

establishment at ages in excess of 50, if they were able, by the addition of such unestablished service as was reckonable, to complete this period of 10 years by the age of 60. The provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions (Voluntary Contributors) Act which are related to a pensionable age of 65 and which fix the age limit for future entrants at 40 do not appear to be comparable.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the position in regard to periods of temporary or otherwise unestablished service in the assessment of Civil Service pensions; and whether, in cases where temporary service is excluded, this is done on grounds of principle or of expediency?

Lieut-Colonel Colville: In the case of persons whose unestablished service began before 27th June, 1935, the Treasury have power under Statute, in the event of establishment, to reckon previous unestablished service for pension, if in their opinion any special circumstances of the case warrant such a course. The decisions which have been taken in the exercise of this discretion cannot be briefly summarised but their effect was considered by the Royal Commission on the Civil Service (1929–31) to be more favourable to Civil servants than was justified by the true construction of the Statute. This power was abolished by the Superannuation Act, 1935, as regards persons whose unestablished service began after its commencement and a uniform rule was substituted for such persons that in the event of their establishment one half of their continuous unestablished service from not earlier than 27th June, 1935, should reckon for pension.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider setting up a committee to inquire into the grievance of temporary or otherwise unestablished Civil servants in regard to pensionable service?

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has any statement to make regarding the setting up a committee to inquire into and report on the question of counting, for pension purposes, the period of unestablished service under the Crown of Civil servants taken into establishment in Greenock and elsewhere in the United


Kingdom after unestablished service, or otherwise to make recommendations regarding a more generous exercise by the Treasury of its discretion in the operation of the Superannuation Acts than has hitherto prevailed?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 8th July last to the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Gibson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the widespread desire for this committee of inquiry, and does he see in my hand a batch of letters on the subject, which I received an hour ago?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. and learned Member will be aware of the answer to which I have referred, in which my right hon. Friend said that although the matter had been repeatedly examined, the question whether further inquiries would serve a useful purpose would receive due consideration.

Mr. Stephen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when we shall be informed whether the committee is to be set up?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Not yet.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not say that there will be an inquiry? Is there any reason why there should not be an inquiry?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot go beyond what my right hon. Friend has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

BICYCLE PARKING PLACES.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to encourage healthful exercise by office and other workers who are unable to walk to work, he will take steps in conjunction with local authorities to provide parking places, particularly in London and other urban areas, for bicycles such as are to be found in many Continental cities?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): In the Public Health Act, 1925, Parliament gave wide powers in this regard to local authorities. I hope my

hon. and gallant Friend's question will serve to remind them of their powers. My right hon. Friend has power under the London Traffic Acts to appoint parking places in the London Traffic Area for cyclists on the highway, but not off the highway. Any substantial increase however in the number of cyclists in London would add to traffic difficulties, particularly in peak hours.

TRUNK ROADS, SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has authorised any trunk road improvement schemes in South Wales and Monmouthshire since his Department became responsible for trunk roads; and, if so, will he give particulars of the roads to be improved and the estimated cost?

Captain Hudson: In addition to the works (totalling some £400,000) to which approval had been given before 1st April, 1937, my right hon. Friend hopes to put in hand during the current financial year a number of other improvement works to a value of approximately £270,000 so soon as the necessary agency agreements have been concluded with the councils concerned. I will endeavour to send the hon. Member such details of individual roads as are available.

Mr. Morgan Jones: Is that the maximum which the Government can do to help the distressed areas?

Captain Hudson: It is only since 1st April that my Department have taken over the trunk roads. I should like to give a more detailed statement, and perhaps I shall be able to do so before very long.

DOMINIONS (NON-BRITISH MANUFACTURED GOODS).

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any, or all, of the Dominions require that non-British manufactured goods imported into their territory must bear some designation of the country of origin?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: In Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Irish Free State, certain classes of goods, irrespective of whether they are British or foreign, are required to be marked


with an indication of the country of origin. No such requirement exists in New Zealand or the Union of South Africa.

JUTE MILL WORKERS.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will procure from the International Labour Office or elsewhere, and cause to be placed in the Library of this House, comparisons between the hours of labour and the wages paid to the jute mill workers in Bengal and Dundee, respectively, giving the various sections of spinners, balers, and weavers, and showing male and female labour separately?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): For jute mill workers in Great Britain, minimum rates of wages are fixed by orders issued under the Trade Boards Acts, 1909 and 1918. A copy of the current order is being placed in the Library. Particulars of the average earnings of workpeople in the jute

industry in a week in October, 1935, were published on page 47 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February, 1937, a copy of which is already in the Library. The latest detailed figures regarding the wages of jute workers in Bengal are given in the "Annual Report on the Administration of the Indian Factories Act in Bengal" for the year 1933, pages 58 to 69. I am arranging for a copy of this report to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Johnston: Can the hon. Member say whether that report also deals with hours of labour, and whether it is the case that in the Bengal mills they are now working 54 hours?

Mr. Butler: That is the case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 229; Noes, 99.

Division No. 277.]
AYES.
[3.54 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Furness, S. N.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Chorlton, A. E. L.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Christie, J. A.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)


Albery, Sir Irving
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Assheton, R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Goldie, N. B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Cox, H. B. T.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Balniel, Lord
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Grant-Ferris, R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Crooke, J. S.
Granville, E. L.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cross, R.H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T.P.H.
Crossley, A. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'h)
Culverwell, C. T.
Grimston, R. V.


Beechman, N. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Beit, Sir A. L.
De Chair, S. S.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
De la Bère, R.
Guy, J. C. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Doland, G. F.
Hannah, I. C.


Blair, Sir R.
Donner, P. W.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hartington, Marquess of


Boulton, W. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Harvey, Sir G.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duggan, H. J.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Brass, Sir W.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Bull, B. B.
Dunglass, Lord
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Butler, R. A.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hepworth, J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Elmley, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Carver, Major W. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Holmes, J. S.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hopkinson, A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fleming, E. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Channon, H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)




Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Hunter, T.
Munro, P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hutchinson, G. C.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Keeling, E. H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Patrick, C. M.
Storey, S.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Peaks, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Petherick, M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Levy, T.
Pilkington, R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Lewis, O.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Thomas, J. P. L.



Liddall, W. S.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Train, Sir J.


Lipson, D. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Radford, E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lyons, A. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ramsbotham, H.
Warrender, Sir V.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Watt, G. S. H.


McKie, J. H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wayland, Sir W. A


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Manningham-Buller. Sir M.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T.(Hitchin)


Markham, S. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Marsden, Commander A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wise, A. R.


Mayhew, Lt.-Cot. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.



Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Savery, Sir Servington
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Morgan, R. H.
Selley, H. R.
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfield, J. W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Barnes, A. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Barr, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Kelly, W. T.
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)



Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
MacLaren, A.
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.



Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Bill read a Second time.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Physical Training and Recreation Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Falmouth) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Culag (Lochinver)) Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Fowey) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morecambe and Heysham) Bill [Lords.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORECAMBE AND HEYSHAM) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]

TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

Orders of the Day — MILK (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

4.3 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill, as was explained in the Debate on the Financial Resolution last week, seeks to extend the Milk Act, 1934, as amended by the Act of 1936, for a further period of 12 months to end on 1st October, 1938. The House knows that the Bill does not import any notable change in the legislation affecting the milk position, and with the exception of two modifications to which I shall refer briefly it is purely and simply a prolongation of the principal Act of 1934 as amended by the Act of 1936. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said last week that he would not be able during the debates on the Bill to state any outline of the more permanent provisions which it is hoped will before long take the place of the Bill. Consequently, I shall not be able to deal with the criticisms based upon the milk position, made last week by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place. The right hon. Member for West Stirling was good enough last week to compliment me upon skating lightly over the facts, and I am bound to admit that by the warmth of his denunciation at that time he did his best to thaw the ice on which I was skating. I must ask him and his friends still to exercise a little patience and watch me cut a few more figures, on the outside edge as it were of the main area.
Before I trouble the House with a few brief observations on the details of the Bill, there are two points which I hope that I may bring to the recollection of the right hon. Member for West Stirling and his supporters. Sometimes it happens that one becomes a little less censorious and critical of one's opponents if one remembers one's own difficulties. For instance, in his speech last week the right hon. Gentleman alleged that the Government was doing its utmost to divert liquid milk supplies into manufacturing processes. If that is the case it is a little difficult to understand why the Government ever embarked upon the

milk in schools scheme, the whole purpose and object of which is precisely the contrary. But I want to take this opportunity of reminding the right hon. Member for West Stirling and his friends that our milk in schools scheme compares extremely favourably with the efforts that he made when in office in 1930. The House will recollect that in the Debate on the Financial Resolution of the Milk (Extension of Temporary Provisions) Act, 1936, the first extension of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman declared—my sympathy went out to him—that when he and his party were in office in 1930 he had almost to sweat blood in order to get £5,000 to start a milk in schools scheme. I cannot help drawing the attention of the House to the contrast which we now provide, for since then we have contributed rather over £1,000,000 for that purpose, and in this Bill we are asking for powers to contribute £500,000 more.
I see that the right hon. Member for West Stirling is now in his place. I was saying that he had my sympathy because of the terrible difficulty he had in getting £5,000 in 1930; but on the larger question, the question of the sale and consumption of liquid milk, I would remind him of certain facts in order to make him a little more sympathetic to the difficulties that we have to face. In the speech during the Debate on the Address in October, 1930, when the right hon. Gentleman occupied the position of Under-Secretary for Scotland, he told the House that he had addressed a meeting of farmers in Glasgow, and he told them and the House that if the milk pool were broken and the liquid surplus allowed to flow, the market would become unremunerative; and he actually recommended that arrangements should be made to prevent the surplus milk from flooding the market. He was asked what he proposed to do. This is what he proposed to do, in his own words:
Assist the co-operative organisations of producers to keep their surpluses off the liquid milk market, and to set up co-operative creameries and factories where those surpluses will he turned into dried and condensed milk."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1930; col. 316; Vol. 244.]
He asked the House what was wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with it. That was preparatory to the marketing scheme, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in his policy. Though


there was nothing wrong when he did it, there appears to be everything wrong with it now that we do it.

Mr. T. Johnston: Is it not also the case that we did our utmost by initiating schemes for developing consumption of liquid milk in the schools? We were the first to do it, and we sought to extend it.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I will give the right hon. Gentleman all the credit for starting a scheme with £5,000. I am not seeking to detract from that effort. His policy then appears to have been very similar to the policy which is being adopted now, but we have a much larger quantity of milk to deal with than the right hon. Gentleman had then. I do not want him to think that I am censuring the policy of 1930. The right hon. Gentleman was then in very much the same difficulty that perplexed us, namely, the disparity between the price of liquid and manufacturing milk. His solution was to endeavour to stem the flow of liquid milk and to direct it to manufacture. His difficulties were greater than ours because he got his Government to give him only one-hundredth part of the help that we are now giving. The right hon. Gentleman also told the House in that same speech that his policy would be helpful to the chocolate manufacturers. I find it a little difficult to reconcile that statement in 1930 with the right hon. Gentleman's statement last week when he was condemning the Government for diverting the supplies that ought to be consumed by mothers and babies to the manufacture of chocolate. When the right hon. Gentleman remembers his own statements I hope he will be more sympathetic to this side.
I do not think I can add very much more to the extremely clear exposition of the contents of this Bill given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on the Financial Resolution last week. Clauses 1 and 2 extend the period of the Exchequer payments and the period of repayment in respect of manufactured milk, for a further 12 months. Clause 3 extends for a similar period the Exchequer contribution to the expenses of the Milk Board, for schemes designed to increase the demand for milk mainly by means of the milk-in-schools schemes. It is interesting to note that the number of children in the public

elementary schools of England and Wales getting milk under this scheme in March last was four per cent. higher than the corresponding figure of 1936, in spite of the decline in the school population policy. It is a small increase and not half as much as I should like to see, although the school population is less. Clause 4 deals with Northern Ireland and provides for a further extension for 12 months of payments and repayments. Clauses 5 and 6 contain two modifications of the principal Act which were commented upon in the Debate on the Financial Resolution and were very carefully explained by my right hon. Friend.
I do not think the House would wish me to weary them with an intricate description of the causes which led to these modifications, because they were discussed last week. The House knows that the object of Clause 5 is to remove as from the 1st October, 1937, the grievance felt by the Milk Marketing Board. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) in an extremely well-informed speech, set out various facts and figures which constituted his grievance. I make no complaint as to his figures, and I agree that the 1934 formula was not giving the standard price that it was hoped would be obtained. Consequently, we are taking steps in this Bill to alter that formula so that in future the cheese-milk price will be separate from the butter-milk price, and in calculating them the Ministers will take into account the terms of the Board's contracts for the sale of milk for manufacture, although Ministers are not limited to consideration of those terms. It is probable that in practice the manufacturing price in the Board's current contracts will be taken, but I think the House will agree with me that it is desirable that the Minister should have discretion to fix a higher price if he thinks fit. In short, the new cheese-milk price and the buttermilk price for any month after September next will represent the value per gallon of the greater part of the milk sold in that month and manufactured into cheese or butter, as the case may be. As my right hon. Friend said last week, the result will be that whereas the gross payments to the Milk Board for the next 12 months would be £68,000 on the basis of present prices, under this Bill they will get £550,000 and will be liable to repay, at a rough estimate, £10,000, making a net payment of £540,000.


Clause 6 interprets the expression "net cost per gallon of milk to the purchaser," which occurs in Section 1 of the principal Act. The Government were advised that, as a matter of legal interpretation, that phrase might have a meaning quite contrary to what was intended so as to comprise within the term "net cost" such items as the costs of collecting the milk from farms and the special May levy for publicity. It was never intended that the phrase should have that interpretation. As far as I know, no claim has been made on the basis of it, but in order to obviate doubt and to make the intention clear, we propose to provide in this Bill that the net cost in relation to manufacturing milk shall be the price specified in the contract with such additions as the Minister may determine as representing other sums payable in respect of the milk. If the contract does not specify a price, the net cost is to be the sum that the Minister may determine as representing the price per gallon of manufacturing milk, with such additions as he may decide. The last part of the Clause comes into play when the contract specifies different manufacturing prices for different descriptions of the same milk product, as for instance where milk is sold for manufacture into cheese, and different prices are given according to whether the cheese is Stilton cheese, soft cheese, cream cheese, and so on.
Clause 7 deals with cases where producer-retailers have been taking part in schemes for the supply of cheap milk to nursing and expectant mothers and children under school age in certain areas. The Milk Marketing Board makes rebates to those retailers, but some doubt has arisen as to whether the board have legal power to make those rebates under this scheme. In order to set those doubts at rest, the Clause will establish the validity of such payments. Clause 8 deals with certain consequential minor Amendments to the principal Act, and I do not propose to weary the House by going into details regarding them at this stage. Last week the House assented to the Financial Resolution upon which this Bill is founded, realising that it was a temporary Measure and that to reject it would cause grave damage to the milk industry and to a large section of the consumers. Exactly the same considerations apply to this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling disliked part of

the Financial Resolution, and no doubt he will dislike the corresponding part of this Bill; but he said that in order to avoid being misunderstood in the country, he and his hon. Friends did not propose to divide against the Financial Resolution. I can assure him that if he refrains from dividing against this Bill, the country will not misunderstand him.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: While my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) is quite capable of defending himself against the Minister of Pensions, it would not be out of place if I were to say now that in 1930, when my right hon. Friend occupied a Ministerial appointment, the problems confronting the nation were not the same as they were in 1934. In 1933–34, the increase in the output of liquid milk, as compared with the output in 1930, was no less than 8½ per cent., and as far as one can gather, neither the farmers nor the Government had done anything to provide a market for that increased output. Therefore, the two periods were in no way identical. The least that can be said of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling is that he visualised the possibility of an increased output of milk and paved the way by the Scottish experiment, which, as is always the case, is slowly but surely followed by Members of the Conservative party, if only they are in office long enough. What the Government did in 1934 and subsequently was merely to follow the very fine lead which was given by the Labour Government in 1930, and which was very largely due to my right hon. Friend. From that point of view, when the Minister of Pensions refers to skating, I think I may say that compared with him the Home Secretary is a mere novice.
If legislation could either kill or cure an industry, agriculture ought either to be extremely healthy or to have been dead years ago. This is the third Milk Bill we have had. The Minister tells us that the final instalment may come later, but he is unable to make any reference to it at this moment. The original Milk Bill in 1934 made provision for milk for school children. It is true that the £500,000 set apart to help school milk compared very favourably with the £5,000 for the initial experiment, but the Milk Bill of 1934 gave £5,500,000 approximately


to dairy farmers in one way or another for dealing with their surplus milk. In 1936 the Bill was extended, and it is now to be extended again. Nobody expects the National Government to make up its mind rapidly, although I hope the new Minister of Agriculture will act much more rapidly than some of his predecessors; it is a question of jam tomorrow but never jam to-day, and we shall have to wait and see what happens.
Last week we said that we welcomed the extension of the scheme for supplying milk to elementary school children and that we would hesitate to vote against it—certainly, we would not vote against it on principle—because we knew that we should be misrepresented in the country if we voted against parts of the Measure towards which we were much less kindly disposed than we were towards providing the subsidy for manufacturing milk. The position at the moment is simply ludicrous. Many people find it impossible to purchase requisite supplies of liquid milk at 2s. a gallon, yet since 1934–35 we have been providing a subsidy for manufacturing milk which is sold in hundreds of millions of gallons at 5d. a gallon.
On the first occasion that a Milk Bill was introduced in the House, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) stated that he and his hon. Friends feared that the outcome of the subsidising of manufacturing milk would be to establish a chain of creameries and a chain of factories which would have to be subsidised for ever. If the Minister does not take time by the forelock, it almost looks as if that will be the case, and that we shall be left in a similar situation with the factories dealing with surplus milk as we were ultimately left in with regard to sugar beet. I remember that in the same Debate the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said that he agreed with 100 per cent. of what I said on that occasion, but that the Government were dealing with an immediate problem requiring an immediate remedy, and that, as a temporary expedient, he would be ready to support the Government on that occasion. Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Gentleman argued learnedly that the only ultimate solution of the milk problem would be when we

subsidised milk into the stomachs of the women and children and not into the factories. At that time, we moved a reasoned Amendment. It was either my good fortune or misfortune to speak on the Amendment, and the words of it apply just as much in 1937 as they did in 1934. It read:
Whilst this House is of opinion that the wider distribution of a pure and efficient milk supply is an urgent necessity, it cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which is designed to encourage the production of milk products in preference to an increase in the consumption of fresh milk amongst the children in public elementary schools and at a price within the reach of the poorer households.
That was our point of view in 1934, and it is still our point of view in 1937. Having regard to our experience, we regret that the Government have not extended the cheaper or free supply of milk instead of allowing this chain of factories to be built up over a period of time. As an emergency Measure, the 1934 Act was probably justified, but three years have passed since that time, and we are still extending the 1934 Measure, and four years will have elapsed before the Government have made up their mind on a permanent policy. What has been our experience? The Minister of Agriculture in 1934 told us that he wanted above all to put a bottom in the price; he did so, but he knocked the bottom out of many people's milk jugs. The supply of milk has increased, the surplus has increased, and the prices have increased. In 1937, the price of liquid milk is more than it was in 1934. The Government cannot claim any credit for that situation. Not only is the liquid milk price higher than it was in 1934, but the farmers are receiving less in 1937 than in 1934. The whole thing is topsy-turvy, with the result that the greater the output, the higher the price. I know that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us, as he no doubt will tell us, that the utilisation of factories and workshops for the establishment of milk depots is very good work, and we shall readily agree with that. The total increase in liquid sales for 1936–37 was 12,500,000 gallons. That seems a nice increase until it is compared with a surplus of 400,000,000 gallons, and then it looks very small. The agricultural correspondent of the "Times" made this statement in June:


The increase in liquid milk sales is probably due more to rising industrial prosperity than to such propaganda efforts. Advertising milk would be waste of money if the public had not the money to buy increased quantities. The Milk Board campaign has certainly had a very favourable wind.
The right hon. Gentleman may tell us that Government policy has contributed to industrial prosperity and has tended to put more wages into the pockets of the workers, but that only goes to prove our argument that the problem of the farmer is not one of production. His productive capacity is almost unlimited, and his problem is to have enough consumers who can afford to buy his products at a price that will pay him. On the basis of existing normal wages, obviously a large proportion of the people find it impossible to pay from 2s. to 2s. 3d. per gallon for milk. Hence the surplus, and hence we find organised society through the Government coming to the rescue of a disorganised society in agriculture.
These emergency proposals are not taking us forward at all. We are actually progressing backwards. The diversion of 400,000,000 gallons to factories for cream, condensed milk, dried milk, butter, or whatever it may be, represents a heavy burden not only on the producer but on those who buy liquid milk in reasonable quantities in this country. If millions of people cannot afford to pay 2s. a gallon for liquid milk and if nutrition experts and medical officers agree that milk is the most important of all foodstuffs for nursing and expectant mothers and children from one year to the school-going age then, clearly, instead of selling this whole surplus at 5d. per gallon to factories it ought not to be beyond the wit of the National Government, this Government of all the virtues, to find a scheme for providing free supplies of milk to some of these mothers and children and cheaper supplies to others. Those who received it would benefit by the consumption of the milk, and the farmer would benefit by the increased price.
What have we been doing in the past three years? From 1933 to 1936 we have been entering into voluntary agreements to reduce the imports of dairy products so that we might produce those articles ourselves out of this surplus of milk. In 1936 our imports of cream compared with 1933 had been reduced by 34,000 cwts.; our imports of condensed unsweetened milk by 148,000 cwts.; of condensed

sweet milk by 55,000 cwts., and of separated or skimmed milk by over 500,000 cwts. And still there are 38,000 cwts. left, while our exports of condensed milk, sweetened and unsweetened, have increased by 164,000 cwts., meaning in effect that we are selling milk to the foreigner at 5d. a gallon and charging working-class women and children in this country 2s. a gallon. It is a state of things which simply will not bear looking at, and if the Minister cannot tell us to-day what his long-term policy is likely to be, I hope he will give some indication that the time is not far distant when we shall cease to subsidise manufacturing milk or at least when the amount which we do subsidise will be a minimum and that the Government intend to do everything in their power to provide a cheaper milk supply for those millions of families who now find it impossible to buy their requirements.
I notice that the quantity of milk turned into butter in this country has increased six times since 1930. It may be desirable to produce large quantities of butter in this country, but if we are going to do so, then the liquid milk consumers will have something to say about the price of their liquid milk. A Noble Lord said recently in another place that the liquid milk consumer at present was subsidising the manufacturer to the extent of 3d. per gallon, or approximately £6,000,000 per annum. That retards the increase in liquid milk sales. It represents a burden on the consumer which ought to be taken off as quickly as possible. Only when we reduce the price or alternatively when organised society uses the Treasury as a health service to provide milk for many families who are now unable to get it, shall we be able to deal with the problem now confronting us. The policy which we have been pursuing has been to keep liquid sales down to the minimum. I am convinced that our object and our aim ought to be to secure the maximum and not the minimum consumption of liquid milk.
We feel that the policy of the Government ought to be threefold. It ought to aim at a reduction of price, it ought to provide free or cheap supplies for expectant and nursing mothers and for children between one and five and it ought to provide for steps to rationalise the distribution of milk. The Noble Lord to whom I have already referred made a


speech on this subject elsewhere which he has since had circulated to hon. Members. He declared that the large volume of milk diverted to manufacture had so increased the price of liquid milk that the subsidy was equivalent to 3d. per gallon. We think that by thoroughly rationalising the distribution we might easily save another 4d. per gallon. Then the producers themselves ought to be able to forfeit 1d. per gallon because with the price reduced to 2d. a pint from 3d. a pint the consumption would increase enormously and the producer would ultimately get more than he is receiving to-day. In any case, there is no reason why the inefficient producer should be kept in business any longer. For those reasons I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not ignore the facts and figures submitted to him by the Noble Lord already mentioned.
Then the Children's Minimum Committee, a society representing nearly 2,000,000 women in this country, have submitted to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Minister of Health proposals whereby the price of milk might be reduced to nursing and expectant mothers and to young children in the same category as elementary school children. They propose a means whereby the price might be reduced from 3d. per pint to 1½d. per pint. Their statement is that there are 3,500,000 women and young children in that category. If they were to take a half pint of milk each per day, if the price charged by the producer were to be 9½d. per gallon and the price charged by the distributor 8d. per gallon making 1s. 5½d. per gallon in all, and if the Government undertook the burden of 5½d. per gallon leaving the milk to be supplied to that category at 1½d. per pint, the cost to the Exchequer would be £1,666,000 per annum less what they would save on their subsidy for manufacturing milk and less any increase they would obtain in duties on imported dairy produce. If we can make available for 3,000,000 deserving persons what has been agreed to be the only reliable foodstuff for mothers and young children at that period and if we can do so at half the present price, even though the cost to the Exchequer might be just over £1,500,000, would it not constitute the most important, the most positive and the best subsidy that the National Government have provided in the last six years?
In any case we should be pouring the milk into the stomachs of the people instead of into the factories. As a health measure it would be extremely beneficial and would probably save millions of pounds later on. It would take off the market approximately 80,000,000 gallons of liquid milk and to that extent the farmer would be receiving 9½d. a gallon instead of 5d. or 6d., and we should know that the best possible use was being made of the milk. The Minister may say that it would be an exceedingly difficult scheme to administer. Everything, we are told, is difficult to administer but if a subsidy is wanted for people who grow wheat or oats or barley or beef then, no sooner said than done—the machinery is at once provided. I am convinced that until we find the means of taking more liquid milk off the market, and while we are left with the surplus of 340,000,000 to 400,000,000 gallons per annum the dairy farmer is not going to be a happy man. He cannot feel that his position is stable. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will begin to consider seriously subsidising the consumption of liquid milk and cheapening the supply of liquid milk to those who need it but who cannot afford to buy the requisite quantities of it. I am very hesitant to quote against the Minister of Pensions what he said in his election campaign in 1935. He is so decent in most things that I hate to reduce him to farcical proportions, but I must recall that when seeking the votes of the people then he said:
I hope soon to he able to announce a policy under which the cheap milk scheme for school children will be extended to expectant mothers and children under five. It is our policy to divert surplus food into the stomachs of those who live in our back streets and who are sorely in need of it.
We agree with that sentiment. That was said on 5th November, 1935. It will soon be November. 1937, but no statement has yet been made from that bench. When is the Minister of Pensions going to announce that policy which he promised the electors in 1935? It is a sound policy. We would welcome it and give him every support on it. I am sure this House for once in a way would form itself into a Council of State if the hon. Gentleman only came forward to give effect to that promise. Last year the Minister of Health in this House said he could give the undertaking that the Government would be willing to support


any practical proposals for the extension of the cheap milk scheme for schoolchildren and the Minister of Agriculture has stated that one effective way to increase consumption is to lower the retail price; that the arrangements for the supply of cheaper milk in schools is an example of the manner in which machinery can be used to increase consumption and that children below school-going age and expectant and nursing mothers have at least as great a need for cheaper milk as others. I do not need to quote any further authorities. The Ministry are in possession of much more information than I have on this subject, and I want to suggest that, after the original Bill in 1934, the extension in 1936, and another extension in 1937, it is high time, not only in the interests of the population of this country, but of the producer of milk as well, that we ceased fiddling and started getting on with the job.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I am rather tempted to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) into the intricacies of the arithmetical speculations that he has just been putting before us, which open up a very wide field. On the other hand, this is not really the occasion for doing that, and we shall have other occasions, one hopes, this calendar year, though not this part of the Session, for going into these very difficult matters connected with national milk policy more fully when the Government's proposals are really before us. I am sure that it was with no lack of realisation of their difficulty that the hon. Gentleman who preceded me made the suggestions, which at first sight seemed so easy and so plausible, which would really deal with the whole thing. I wish it was as simple as it sometimes seems. I think we should be wiser this afternoon in getting reasonably soon if we can to the Committee stage of the Agriculture Bill. Hon. Members may remember that on the Financial Resolution in connection with that Bill I asked the Minister whether he could make clear to us what was the real policy of the Government in regard to the reorganisation of the veterinary services, and he said that that matter would come up and be discussed more properly on one of the Amendments to the Financial Resolution, which afterwards was not moved, so that that matter has not

come before the House, and I think the House is interested in it. Therefore, I will confine myself to two quite small points.
First of all, the Minister and I had some slight disagreement with regard to the actual movements of factory milk as compared with liquid milk. I stated that on the latest figures that I could get the factory milk seemed to have been increasing faster than the liquid milk, and that is so to a fractional extent when I compare the last two reports of the Milk Marketing Board. The figures, comparing 1936–37 with 1935–36, show an increase of liquid milk of 12,000,000 gallons and an increase of factory milk of about 8,000,000 gallons, which is a very slightly greater proportional increase of the factory milk than of the liquid milk. There is practically nothing in it, but there it is. The Minister did not deny that. He said that last year it was so, but that this year it has not been so. If he could show that, subsequent to that Milk Marketing Board year, things have been turning in a better direction, I am sure we should all be very pleased to know of it and to know to what extent it is due to Government policy with regard to the milk in schools scheme or anything else, and to what extent it is due to other causes which may or may not soon pass away.
The important thing is that, whichever year you take, there is more than half as much milk going to the factories as goes in human consumption. The figure for 1935–36 was 335,000,000 gallons factory to 657,000,000 liquid, and the figure for 1936–37 was 342,000,000 factory to 669,000,000 liquid; and that is a thing which is pressing the milk industry rather hard. They have by their levy to make up the price of more than a third of their milk which goes to factories, and it is that that is staring us in the face and that needs to be grappled with, as no doubt the Government are going to grapple with it in due time. We realise that they have only had an eight months' period of gestation of this matter since the report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission was published, and that that may be too short a time for them, but no doubt we shall get the real scheme later on.
The only other point that I want to make is this, that when I said a few words on the Financial Resolution I quoted


something which my hon. Friend the Member for the Barnstaple Division (Mr. Acland) had said about the organisation of a better scheme for grading butter. He had drawn attention to what had been borne in upon him in talking to people who came from Australia, namely, that if we were to get a real market for our butter, we had got to standardise and grade it better than we normally do now, and that that needed a real corps of trained butter graders and tasters; and in reply to that suggestion the Minister's predecessor had said that he could give the hon. Member all the assurance in his power that from the point of view of efficiency and quality what he had said would not be lost sight of, in preparing a long-term policy, during the interim period. I do not expect the Minister to make any statement as to what is in contemplation with regard to that to-day, but I would like an assurance, if he can give us it, that that question of getting a better price for our butter, not by subsidising it, but by taking steps to improve its popularity and its quality, is not being lost sight of in the other matters which no doubt are engaging his attention.
In the circumstances, I think it is not unreasonable that we should be asked in general to renew these subsidies. Whether our constant renewal of the factory subsidy is not encouraging the manufacturer to go on from month to month and from year to year and allowing these very large amounts of factory milk to be obstructing a real, sound, national policy, is another matter, on which we may have something to say on the Committee stage of the Bill, but at this stage I hope the Second Reading will be carried.

4.52 p.m.

Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith: In listening to these Debates I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Opposition are inclined to throw a certain amount, if not quite a lot, of blame on the milk producers for the fact that more liquid milk is not available at cheaper prices. I hardly think the Opposition will say that any blame can be laid on the producers for the fact that some sections of the community have not enough money to buy their full amount of liquid milk. I think the producers have shown quite a commendable spirit in co-operating in the various schemes which have been put forward for dealing with nutrition,

like the milk in schools scheme, and indeed they have initiated certain other schemes in the Special Areas, which, I think, may point the way to what can be done in the future. I would say straight away that milk producers as a whole agree that it would be indeed desirable to have some bigger scheme with regard to nutrition. We have pointed that out right from the very beginning of the milk scheme and, indeed, before that.
I think the House will agree that the ideal way of dealing with the problem is to get employment back so that the consumer can in fact have enough of his own money in his pocket to buy the necessary amount of milk and, as the Prime Minister said the other day, to create his own happiness out of his own pocket, but until we have been able to liquidate the position which has been left to us by very nearly 100 years of Free Trade, where, in fact, we have got these people who cannot afford to buy the milk, I agree that the State has some responsibility, but it has never been suggested that the milk producers themselves should bear the whole burden of these great social services which are suggested by the Opposition, and until the State does take over this responsibility and does provide the means, I suggest that the producer has only one job, and that is to continue to provide an adequate supply of milk to meet each and every demand at the lowest possible price. I think that he is doing that job very well at this moment and, in fact, that the consumer has no real "grouse" against the producer at all.
I wish to deal for a moment with the producer's side of the matter. I would like to have said something about distribution, but I think that is a matter for the future, and I hope that we shall hear that the whole problem of distribution will be inquired into as soon as possible, but, as far as the producer is concerned, I suggest that he is doing his job as cheaply as possible. The Opposition are always asking about costs of production, and, as far as milk is concerned, we can give them some help and guidance in this matter. It will be within the recollection of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that the Committee of Investigation accepted the price of 9½d. as being the average cost of


production for milk throughout the country. The average pool price last year was 11.48d. per gallon. From that you have to deduct 1.75d. per gallon for collection and transport, and that leaves a potential profit of 0.23d. per gallon, or less than a farthing per gallon. I do not think anybody would suggest that that is a really outrageous profit. It is round about 16s. 8d. per annum on an 800-gallon cow, and I do not think that is going to fill anybody with greed or to make anybody's mouth water. I would also say that this figure of 9½d. per gallon as the cost of production was taken before the cost of feeding-stuffs rose to the point at which it now stands, or 40 per cent. since that determination. Therefore, I think it can be said with truth that the average milk producer in this country is now producing his milk at a loss.
I do not think there can be any doubt at all that at this moment there is something rotten about the state of milk production. I had a chance during the last week of being up at the Royal show, where I was able to meet, not only milk producers, but also those merchants who sell the feeding-stuffs, implements, and so on, and it was indeed a very sad story. I met one very big seller of cattle food, who had not got a stand there this year, for this reason, that he said he could not face it. Only last week he had sent out to milk producers something over 100 writs to try and get back his money from those producers. I saw some of their letters, which he showed me, and the tale was a very unsatisfactory tale, and an indication that the milk producers are not profiteering over this scheme. It is right to say that in a lot of districts the value of a producer-retailer's milk round had gone down by something over £7 per gallon as compared with what is was two or three years ago. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) can say whether that is so or not—he might know something about it—but it certainly has depreciated very much indeed. Therefore I do not think any charges can be levelled against the producer.
Why has this state of things come about? I think the hon. Member for Don Valley has in fact pointed to the reason. In the whole story of milk production the villain of the piece has been the value of milk used for manufacture,

and this is a very old story, because long before the Milk Marketing Board came into operation this villain pursued those who were trying to bring about voluntary negotiations on the permanent Joint Milk Committee, and the villain still pursues them. In the pre-Milk Marketing Board days the depressed values of manufacturing milk did bring about such an undercutting of prices as led to very unsatisfactory conditions in the milk industry. To escape having to sell in this market the producers were undercutting their fellow producers and the retailers were following suit. In fact, the whole structure of the milk industry was completely undermined. The consumers may have gained some temporary advantages under that scheme of things, but "alas, regardless of their doom." There is no question that at one period the country was faced with a definite shortage of milk. Indeed, if things had gone on as they were going then, and if prices had become so depressed there would, without doubt, have been a milk famine.
The next question which arises is why, if that is so and if milk production is so unprofitable, there is all this surplus and why producers are concentrating on milk and not on other things which they can grow or produce? The answer is simple. In any business which produces a variety of commodities, those in charge of the business can either say to themselves, "What am I going to concentrate on in order to get the most profit?" or, "What am I going to produce which will show the least loss." In farming in the last few years milk production has been the "last ditch" of the farmer. Farmers have been forced out of cattle production, breeding and rearing, and other branches of farming, while arable has gone down, and they have been forced into milk production in order to try and minimise their losses, but not in order to try and make very much profits.
For years the milk producers have recognised the desirability of bringing down the prices of liquid milk, and they have realised that if they could obtain an economic price for the milk going into manufacture they could bring down the liquid milk prices. At the present moment, however, the mere bringing down of prices would be a risky thing for the Milk Board to do, because they have not very much money to play with as far as profits are concerned. If the Milk


Board were to reduce the wholesale prices of liquid milk by 2d. per gallon the consumption would have to go up by 25 per cent. to enable the Milk Board to pay out the amount which they are at present paying to the producers. To get milk production up by 25 per cent. in this country is a difficult thing, because it is well known that we are not so partial to milk as some other countries are. Therefore, when people talk about a reduction of price immediately bringing about increased consumption, I rather think that it is over-simplifying the problem. Indeed, the Milk Board would be taking a rash step if they were to reduce prices unduly.
We have to realise, too, that it will be impossible for us to reduce the price of liquid milk while this country is subject to the dumping of milk products from the Dominions and foreign countries. You can buy Dominion butter over here very much cheaper than it is sold in the Dominions. In Sweden and Holland butter is infinitely more expensive than the butter which they place on this market. The Government recognise that fact, and a little time back they gave a firm undertaking to milk producers that if they organised themselves the Government would set about controlling imports. That was a definite undertaking and it persuaded milk producers to take action under the Agricultural Marketing Act. If the Government had committed the justifiable homicide of the villain surplus by controlling imports, the condition of the industry would be very different from what it is to-day, and I think that probably liquid milk prices could have been reduced. The volume of imports has increased. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave instances of certain commodities the imports of which have been reduced, but if he will take the milk equivalent of commodities coming to this country, he will find that in 1932 we imported 2,500,000,000 gallons; in 1935, 2,823,000,000 gallons; and in 1936, 2,871,000,000. Our production has stood constant at about 1,000,000,000 gallons.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is a duty of 15s. per cwt. on imported foreign butter and of 10 per cent. on imported cheese; and that of the imports of cheese

89 per cent. came from the Dominions, and of butter 56 per cent.?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That is my complaint. There are ways and means of getting round the tariff and the Dominions have found them as quickly as anybody, whether by maintaining the internal price, or depreciating their currency, or some other means. Unfortunately this milk has arrived in this country and it has had a disastrous effect from the producer's point of view on the prices of milk products. In 1929 the price of New Zealand butter was 172s. 3d. per cwt., and in 1936 it was 72s. 7d. The retail price dropped from 1s. 10¼d. to 11¼d. That, of course, has made great difficulties for the producer, although the consumer, again, has benefited. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) brought out the fact that the consumer benefits by the lower prices of butter and so on. The fact is that the consumption in this country of milk in fresh milk, butter and cheese, is about 90 to 100 gallons per head per annum. That has been bought during the last few years at the equivalent of about one penny per pint for all the milk used for human consumption. I doubt whether there is another country which can say that the whole of its milk consumption goes in as cheaply as that.
The complaint is always coming from the Opposition about the board selling so-called cheap milk to the manufacturers. I wish that they would occasionally look at the question from the point of view of the Milk Board. If they will grant me that even they do not expect the producers to start these great schemes of social service and to bear the whole burden, they will realise that the Milk Board has to sell all the milk at prices which will enable the manufacturers in this country to compete with imports from foreign countries and the Dominions. The board has also to try and prevent the manufacturers from having recourse to what is known as the "iron cow." That is important, because if the price becomes too high it is not impossible that the manufacturers of chocolate and that kind of commodity will reconstitute imported butter, with the result that the home milk producers will not be able to sell their milk into that market at all. It was because of these difficulties of


the milk industry that the Government first introduced this first Milk Act to take the place of the control of imports which they had promised.
I do not think the Minister will be surprised that producers think this is a very poor substitute for the protection which they had expected. In spite of the provisions of this Measure and of the assistance which it has given, the milk producers have had to suffer an average deduction from wholesale liquid prices of more than 3¾d. per gallon during the last year to carry the manufacturing milk. That has been a burden which the Minister will agree has been almost intolerable. I do not think that the Minister will claim that this Bill meets to any degree the present need of the industry, but I think he can tell the House that it represents a magnificent bargain as far as the Treasury are concerned. As I see the situation—and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin) put this quite clearly—it relieves the Government of a moral obligation of about £1,200,000, and it debars the Milk Board from going forward with a claim for something like £200,000 on the determination on the net price. The milk producers have every right to feel a bit sore about this unless some more definite and satisfactory explanation can be given by the Minister.
When the Milk Act was first brought in, the House determined that the milk producers should have 5d. in summer and 6d. in winter for milk going into butter and cheese. In order to determine a basis for payment the formula which was then used by the Milk Board was adopted. This House undertook to pay the difference between that formula price, which was a straight average price of Canadian and New Zealand cheese, and the 5d. and 6d. Then prices relapsed and world prices fell, and the committee of investigation was called upon to determine whether that was a fair price for the manufacturer to pay. They decided that in view of the existing circumstances the price was too high, and they suggested that instead of a straight average there should he a weighted average.
The then Minister of Agriculture ordered the Milk Marketing Board to alter their formula so that the price which should be paid for the milk was less than the original formula. The Board had no choice in the matter. They were told to depart from the formula, and it has meant

that the Board has received something like £1,200,000 less than they would have received had they stuck to the original formula. This meant that although the House had given instructions that the producers were to get 5d. and 6d., they never got it. It would be rather as through Parliament had decided that out-relief should be given at a certain rate and that the local authorities would pay it, and that then the Minister of Labour, in answer to certain representations from local authorities, had said "No, I will alter the figure and make it lower." If that had happened I imagine there would have been a certain amount of protest from most of the benches here. We feel that it is a most distinct hardship that the instructions and the will of this House have not been carried out in this matter.
The other little claim which the Board had against the Government was one for £200,000 over the net price for milk. I understand that the Law Officers do agree that there is a case, and that the Milk Board probably could establish a right to that money, but this Bill debars the Milk Board from pursuing that claim, because the Clause is made retrospective. It looks to producers as though the uncomfortable little matter of the net price is going to be wiped out, by this being made retrospective, but that the injustice, which has been admitted, about the 5d. and 6d. is not going to be made retrospective, because that does not suit the Government. I am afraid this action will cause a certain amount of trouble throughout the country, because milk producers will consider that they have been rather let down, and I feel that they are right in their complaint, and that the Minister should do what he can, even at this late hour, to try to meet that complaint.
Like other hon. Members I am hoping that very soon we shall have the statement of the Minister's future policy, and I hope that first of all we shall hear that he has been able to devise means of getting milk to those who really need it and cannot afford it. He will have the whole House behind him if he can produce such a scheme for necessitous cases. I hope, also that he will cause the problem of distribution to be examined, because I have a feeling that certain savings could be made. Further, I hope that he will be able to tell us that the milk producers will at long last be able to


have that full measure of protection which was promised right from the beginning, before the Milk Board was formed.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Pensions when he opened the Debate asked for the sympathy of the Opposition because of the difficulty in which the Government found themselves as the result of the increased production of milk. I am not sure that he was entitled to ask for that sympathy. After all, no factor has been so important in bringing about an increase in the production of milk as the failure of the Government to present an effective policy for beef. It is because beef producers have in many cases been driven into the dairying industry that we have this increased production of milk, which aggravates the milk situation today. I realise that these various agricultural problems are of extreme complexity, and I think we all recognise that successive Ministers of Agriculture have endeavoured to grapple with them, but it is to be regretted that we should once more be faced with a temporary Measure. Seeing what has been accomplished in the case of other industries, our disappointment is all the keener. In the last five or six years we have seen an effective form of protection evolved for all our principal manufacturing industries. I know that there have been difficulties and complaints as between one industry and another, but on the whole an effective working system has been introduced. Agriculture, alone of the great industries, has been left out.
It has been said that it is impossible for reasons of high policy, to bring agriculture within that system of Protection. The reasons are well known, and are reasons with which I entirely agree, but it is a lamentable thing that, granted that agriculture cannot be brought within that system of Protection, no effective substitute has yet been found. I submit that the only effective substitute which has been suggested is that of the guaranteed price, supported by a levy on imported produce. That was tried in the case of wheat, where it was extremely successful. I submit that the agricultural problem will not be solved until that principle is extended to all the chief agricultural products. It is the only practical solution which has been offered, having regard to the fact that Protection is applied to all

manufacturing industries. Take the case of milk, which we are discussing. I do not believe that any Minister will be able to submit a satisfactory scheme for the solution of our milk problems unless some levy is placed upon milk products coming from the Dominions. It is the failure of the Government to resist the pressure, the very great pressure, which has come from the Dominions and from some foreign countries against the imposition of levies, which is the cause of the continual failure to produce an effective programme for agriculture.
I urge the Government to reconsider the milk problem, in relation to the other agricultural problems, from that angle, to realise that until they do insist upon our right to place a levy upon all forms of agricultural produce coming into this country, from whatever source, we shall not effectually solve our agricultural problems. Some hon. Members may say that if we do that we may add to our difficulties by producing a substantial increase in the price of foodstuffs generally in this country. I think that what happened in the case of wheat and in the case of Argentine beef, and the very strength of the opposition of the Dominions and foreign countries in those two cases, go to show that a very large proportion of such levies would not fall on the consumer in this country. Granted that there would be some increase in the cost of foodstuffs in this country, I suggest that that is a price which the towns might very fairly pay as their contribution towards restoring prosperity to agriculture. For generations the countryside has been sacrificed to the towns in England.

Mr. Gallacher: Question.

Mr. Lewis: For generations the workers in the country have been sacrificed to the workers in the towns, and it is time that some effort was made to restore that balance. I do not believe that Measures such as the one before us can ever effectively deal with the problem. We may be told of how difficult the situation will be if we do not pass this Bill. I agree that, if it is a case of this Bill or nothing, hon. Members will obviously vote for the Bill, and I doubt whether even the Opposition will vote against it. I hope that we shall not continue in a situation where it is a case of Bills of this kind or nothing, but that we shall have the courage to realise that our agricultural policy as a


whole has not succeeded for the reason that we have not faced the real essential difficulties. Until we do insist, as between ourselves and the Dominions and as between ourselves and foreign suppliers, on our right to support guaranteed prices in this country by levies on imported produce those problems will never be effectively solved.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: In the first place I would refer briefly to some remarks which fell from the Minister of Pensions at the opening of the Debate. He seems to have had a rather interesting time browsing among some old speeches of mine, I hope to his edification, and I trust that as he continues his studies in that direction his opinions will develop still further in the direction of Socialism than they are now. But I am afraid I must take some slight exception to his giving some half-boiled, semi-understood quotations from what I said on 30th October, 1930. He said that when I was in this House assisting to push through the Marketing Act I said, among other things, that the Milk Marketing Board, with compulsory powers against a minority, would supply better milk at a cheap price to chocolate manufacturers. I have before me exactly what I did say on that occasion and it was no such thing. What I did say was that until we could get a Milk Marketing Board with compulsory powers against a minority, the chocolate manufacturers of this country, with one exception, would continue to buy foreign milk for the manufacture of their chocolate. The reason they gave was that in Great Britain there were some 20 or 30 different grades of quality of milk. The chocolate manufacturers told me, when I personally asked them, as chairman of the Empire Marketing Board, to use British milk in preference to foreign milk, that they could not use British milk because they could not get a guaranteed standard, there being some 20 or 30 different grades of quality.
I used that one argument in favour of organised production and organised marketing as against fierce anarchy and competition, with different standards and different grades. I used the argument that if we had one standard, which could be got through a Marketing Board, the chocolate manufacturers would have no further excuse for not buying British milk.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I should not like the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent what happened. What I think he said in his speech in October, quite rightly, was that his policy was to help the chocolate manufacturers. In a recent speech he will see that his policy was designed to help the chocolate manufacturers to a better standard of milk than we are getting.

Mr. Johnston: Surely what I said does not help the chocolate manufacturers. I was speaking about helping the farmers. I was saying that I would compel the chocolate manufacturers to buy British milk after we had secured organised production in this country. I am not saying anything about helping the chocolate manufacturers and I am not suggesting that we should give chocolate manufacturers their milk at cheaper prices than that charged to the industrial consumers.

Mr. Ramsbotham: And better milk?

Mr. Johnston: If we could abolish 20 or 30 different standards of milk, we could compel chocolate manufacturers in this country to use British milk. I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Ramsbotham: I really must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman once more. We are accused of helping the chocolate manufacturer, but the right hon. Gentleman himself was taking steps to obtain better milk for the chocolate manufacturers.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman has not appreciated my point. Would he be good enough, if he has the quotation there, to see what I said? This was what I said:
I am Chairman of the Marketing Committee of the Empire Marketing Board, and I know there is only one big chocolate firm in this country which is making its milk chocolate out of British milk. The rest are importing foreign milk with which to make their milk chocolate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1930; col. 316, Vol. 244.]
I am struggling to get British milk used in the manufacture of British chocolate, and I am not at all concerned that the chocolate manufacturer in this country should get his milk at a cheaper price.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I never suggested that.

Mr. Johnston: It is the gravamen of our case, that the chocolate manufacturer of this country is getting his milk at one-third or one-quarter the price that is charged to the mothers and babies in the distressed areas, and that is what I am complaining about. I beg the hon. Gentleman to believe me, and also the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith), who I understand is president of the National Farmers' Union, when I say that the last thing that we want to do is to go back to the chaos and disorganisation which existed before Marketing Boards were introduced. There is indeed some cause for grumbling on this point. Lord Addison, as he is now, and myself met with a considerable amount of opposition among our own friends and incurred a considerable amount of opprobrium from our friends for the steps which we were taking to induce our party, in the difficult economic circumstances at that time, to agree to the principle of the Marketing Board, and we got precious little help in pushing that Measure through the House from some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Having got it through, and given the farmers power of compulsion upon the minority who had previously interfered with prices—the trouble with such a scheme always is that the minority undercut, undersell and break the fair market of trade union prices—having given the farmers that power, we are entitled to say: "You shall not continue the policy of selling your milk at lower prices to manufacturers than the price at which you are prepared to sell it for necessary human and health purposes to the poorest sections of our industrial population." Like every one else in this House, I hope I am prepared to develop and to change my opinions as new facts come to light, but if there is any subject upon which I think I can say I stand to-day where I stood five or 10 years ago, it is in believing that food should be produced for human use and that that and not profit, is the primary purpose of production.
When I happened to be on the Government side of the House I endeavoured, in a very small way, I grant, to put my principles into operation. It is true, as I said, that I had to sweat blood in order to obtain £5,000 to start the milk-in-schools scheme. The hon. Gentleman

opposite does not know this, but I did not get the £5,000 out of the Treasury. I had to get it out of Empire Marketing Board funds and the Miners' Welfare Fund, and to scrounge round the country to get it. Having got it, and having proved beyond all doubt that a ration of milk to our schoolchildren in Lanarkshire increased their weight, their height, their health and their school attendance, and the benefits of education in every way, we are entitled to plume ourselves a little on the fact that it was our experiments which started this milk-in-schools scheme. We are not complaining about the milk-in-schools scheme of the hon. Gentleman and the Government. It is because he has got in this Bill a payment of money for his milk-in-schools scheme that my hon. and right hon. Friends have seen fit not to vote against this milk Order, and that is the only thing which prevents us from going into the Lobby to-night against the Bill. We do not want to be accused of not agreeing to an extension of the milk-in-schools scheme.
I want to carry this matter a stage further. On about twenty occasions now I have begged the hon. Gentleman and his predecessor to give me any kind of reasoned explanation why they provide cheap milk only for a child of five years of age when it goes to school. Milk is 2s. a gallon for that child at four years of age. What is the reason for that? Milk is also 2s. a gallon for the child aged three, for the baby and for the toddler. We want an explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave figures this afternoon, which, so far as I know, are unanswerable, and have, to my knowledge, been vetted by actuaries and chartered accountants. I believe I am right in saying that a 3,500,000 population of babies, toddlers and children under five years, as well as of nursing mothers, could get their milk at 1s. a gallon—the price at which the farmers are willing to sell milk, and do sell it, to schools—at a total cost to the Government, including the cost of contribution, of about £1,600,000 per annum. If the mothers were to go or send to the shops for the milk, thus saving the cost of distribution, they could get the milk even cheaper than 1s. a gallon.
In 1930 we did not propose a differential price against the poor, such as the Government are operating. We never suggested,


in our wildest dreams, that Horlick's Malted Milk, Fry's, Cadbury's or any other chocolate manufacturer, should get milk at 6d. a gallon and that the distressed areas should pay 2s. We never, in any circumstances, suggested that we should subsidise an export of 12,000,000 gallons of milk in dry form to Czechoslovakia and other countries, while the distressed areas were paying 2s. We did say, and I repeat it this afternoon, that at that time we were faced with an actual importation of dry milk, that foreign countries were importing dried milk into this country, and that if the farmers would agree to compel the minority and to set up a co-operative organisation, we would help them to establish factories for—in my own words—"the amounts that are necessary to be produced," of dried milk in this country.
Again I beg the Minister not to fob us off with a few little university debating tricks. I do not say that he has done so, but that sort of thing has been done 20 times from that bench since the General Election. Is it not the case that the poorest, the least able-to-pay section of the population, whose health most demands it, have to pay 2s. a gallon, while wealthy chocolate manufacturers get milk for 6d. a gallon? That is a straight question. Do the Government intend to continue that system, or to extend their milk-in-schools scheme to children, toddlers and babies under five years of age, at 1s. a gallon? That is another straight question. We are entitled to have straight answers.
I want to comment on an observation which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield and another hon. Gentleman, who talked about the imports of cheese, butter and dairy produce from the Dominions overseas. Here is what the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would call one of the inherent contradictions of Capitalism. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield asked a question on 12th May about British overseas investments and the amount of British money invested overseas. He was told in answer that the best available information went to show that we had—when I say "we had" I mean British nationals—invested in Canada £520,000,000; in Australia, £540,000,000; in New Zealand, £140,000,000; in South Africa,

£280,000,000; and in the Argentine, £440,000,000. If the City of London and the investing classes will invest thousands of millions of pounds overseas, how are they to receive interest upon those investments or how are they to get a return on their capital? They can be paid only in the produce of the people concerned, their manufactured produce and their dairy produce.
The struggle is not, in the last resort, between this country and the Dominions, but between two conflicting interests in this country, the producers of dairy produce and the investors of capital abroad. The investor of capital in Argentina must get back—"must" is probably the wrong word; he hopes to get—a return upon his capital. Obviously he will never get a return on his capital if Argentina is not able to export her beef; if Argentina is prevented from selling her goods here, that will prevent the payment of interest on these investments abroad. I wish hon. Member opposite luck in trying to reconcile these two ideas.

Mr. Lewis: I never suggested that importations from the Dominions or from foreign sources should cease. I suggested that they should pay a levy for the benefit of the home producer. I envisaged their still coming in, because otherwise we should not get the levy.

Mr. Johnston: If you add to the price that the New Zealand producer has to pay to get into your market, he will either be able to sell less in this market or he will have to take a smaller price. In other words, his purchasing power will be limited, and he will be less able to pay the interest on these investments. These are elementary facts, and I am sure it is not necessary to elaborate them further. No one knows better than I do the tremendous difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has in reconciling the various conflicting interests in agriculture, and we forgive him a lot and will help him. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has said, we are prepared to go into a Council of State on the matter if during that process he will see that every human being in this country is fed as long as there is superabundance—that, as long as there is enough, nobody will be left


to go hungry. But, so long as the problem is how to stop production, how to limit production—the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is destroying fish, or is permitting it to be destroyed. He has a Herring Industry Board which is busy cutting down the drifters; and in the case of potatoes he is fining people £5 an acre for every additional acre of potatoes that they grow. The whole purpose of the marketing boards is to limit the flow of produce on to the available market, and quite rightly so; and the same is the case in shipbuilding, in coal—everywhere; capitalism is compelled by its very nature to limit production. I do not wish to make a partisan point, but it can only be in a Socialist community, where production is for use, that you can afford to increase the output without damaging the producer. We appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he go this far with us this afternoon? Will he give us a promise that His Majesty's Government will this summer produce a scheme, to be sympathetically examined by his nutrition committees, his milk reorganisation committees and so on, backed by Sir John Orr, Sir Frederick Gowland Hopkins and all the rest, under which in the autumn the nursing mothers, the babies and the sick will get milk at the same price at which it now pays the farming community to supply milk to schools?

5.51 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and the House will forgive me if I do not seek to extend a Debate upon what is after all a piece of temporary legislation into those very wide questions which have been raised traversing not only the whole of agriculture but an important part of the field of economics as well. The only comment that I would make upon the eloquent peroration of the right hon. Gentleman is that he is as much aware as I am of the difficulties of increasing production and at the same time benefiting consumers in this country. I have never been one who had much faith in milleniums of any kind, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that he need not despair of developments along the lines he suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman has participated in what might be called a storm in a cocoa cup over the battles that were waged about the chocolate manufacturers, but I would ask the House to realise that, in the figures relating to the manufacture of milk products, chocolate is listed with other goods; it has not even a category by itself; and the other goods taken all together only account for 0.84 per cent. of the uses to which manufacturing milk is destined. I think the House will see, therefore, that it is easy to exaggerate the importance of the amount of milk which is destined for chocolate manufacture. I think my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions was justified in contrasting the denunciation which the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech on the Financial Resolution, applied to chocolate manufacturers who allowed cheap milk to come their way, with the practical speech which he made in the Debate on the Address. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary to prevent this manufacturing surplus from breaking the price and rendering the production of milk unremunerative. He was perfectly right in that, but, as I gathered from his last remarks to-day, he is not prepared to countenance a differentiation between the price of milk for chocolate manufacture and the price of liquid milk.
One would think, from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that a differential price as between liquid and manufacturing uses was a new thing that has come into existence since the Milk Marketing Board was set up, but, of course, as he is well aware, and as the House will realise on reflection, a difference between the price commanded by manufacturing milk and the price commanded by liquid milk is of very old standing. In the year of this controversy about chocolate of which we have been reminded, the manufacturing price was in the neighbourhood of 5¾d. a gallon, a price which was calculated on the same basis as the cheese-milk price now is, that is to say, the price at which it might be sold for manufacture having regard to the proportionate quantity of the article imported into this country. In December of the year of that battle, 5¾d. a gallon was the price for manufacturing milk, and 1s. 5d. a gallon was the price for milk for liquid consumption. If the right hon. Gentleman in 1930 was, as he very wisely was,


doing his utmost to keep surplus milk off the liquid market and put it into the manufacturing market, he will realise that when he was doing that he was allowing manufacturers to have it at 5¾d. a gallon.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to read exactly what I did say? What I said quite clearly was that the chocolate manufacturers of this country, with one exception, whose name I can give, were importing their milk from abroad. The reason they gave for doing that was that there were 20 or 30 varieties of milk in this country, and they said that not until they could get a common standard would they buy British milk. My argument in favour of a marketing board was that it was desirable that there should be one standard and one quality, so that this infinitesimal quantity of milk to which the right hon. Gentleman refers should at least be purchased from British sources and not from abroad.

Mr. Morrison: I have no desire to prolong this controversy, and will point out only that there was far more in the problem of disposing of milk for manufacture in 1930 than merely the question of a standard grade of milk. The milk must be sold to the manufacturers at a competitive price, and the competitive price was determined by the importations of the competing article from abroad. That is exactly the position in which we are to-day. There has never been a subsidy on milk manufactured into chocolate. The Milk Board get 9d. a gallon for milk that is manufactured into chocolate, and 3¼d., on the average, for milk sold wholesale for liquid consumption.

Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman says that chocolate manufacturers are paying as much as 9d. a gallon, but I understand that, in the district which he knows, they are paying 6d. a gallon.

Mr. Morrison: I am not myself either a chocolate manufacturer or a member of the Milk Board, so I cannot speak from my own knowledge, but that information has been given to me. I have just had it checked, and am assured that it is correct, in spite of the experience of the hon. Member, that they are paying 9d. a gallon for milk to be used for manufacturing into chocolate. I think I may now dismiss the chocolate question with the appropriate quotation:
Sweets to the sweet. farewell.

Coming to the question of milk, and the reason why we are asking the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I do not bring it before the House as anything more impressive than an umbrella, under which we may proceed from one point of time to another. All that I am asking for is that we may be given a year in which to prepare the more far-reaching and permanent proposals which I am sure the House would like to see on the Statute Book. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) expressed a feeling of disappointment, which I think is common to all of us, that we are still asking for temporary legislation in regard to milk, but I think that anyone who knows the circumstances will feel that the Bill is not unreasonable. The Cutforth Commission reported last Christmas, and since then we have had a great number of representations from all the bodies affected, some of which have been received only very recently. Anyone who realises the magnitude of this industry and the extent of its ramifications, not only into our agriculture but into our commerce, must, I think, agree that it is far better to take sufficient time to examine the matter thoroughly, rather than to produce legislation hastily conceived which may require to be hastily amended in the future.
One or two very interesting points have emerged from the Debate to-day. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and other hon. Members opposite dealt with the question of increasing the consumption of liquid milk as though it were purely and simply a matter of price—as though, if either the price were reduced or the consumer were subsidised in some way, there would inevitably be a rapid increase in the consumption of liquid milk. The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir R. Dorman-Smith) expressed grave doubt as to the validity of that proposition, and I share it. I would refer the House to a very interesting report on milk consumption published in April last by the Agricultural Economics Research Institute, in which a very curious light is thrown on the whole problem. Investigations were carried out in the homes of the people of Oxford. Oxford is to-day no longer a town of a purely academic character. It has a vast industrial population, providing a very good cross-section of life in this country.


The tenour of the report bears out the construction that I am placing upon it. It throws doubt upon the question whether it is price alone, or capacity to pay, which is the determining factor. If says:
The difficulties in the way of increasing the consumption of milk are partly lack of purchasing power and distaste, but possibly the biggest obstacles are antipathy, indifference, and prejudice. The existence of wide variations in the purchases of milk between households with similar food expenditures suggests that milk consumption could be doubled without raising income levels, if the consumer can be induced to do it.
There is a lot of evidence to show that in these matters questions of custom are very important. We are great consumers of milk in the form of butter and cheese, but we are not great consumers of liquid milk. I do not seek to say that questions of price and income have not a great deal to do with it, but they are not the whole story. It has also been suggested that in some way the burden of the loss on manufactured milk is borne by the consumer in unduly inflated price. I recommend there again the exhaustive study into the matter by the Committee of Investigation whose report created the necessity for an alteration in the cheese-milk price. They went with great thoroughness into the question of the costs of the production of milk, and anyone who reads the report will come to the conclusion that, if there is a loss, the person who is really paying it is the producer, because they give us in the main what he can afford to produce at, and it is not by any means very different from the prices which he gets from milk sold for liquid consumption having regard to the necessary margin to allow for seasonal variations in production and consumption. These are important things to bear in mind when the problem of manufacturing milk is taken into account.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman would not want the other side of the report to be lost. He must not overlook the fact that the Committee showed clearly that contract prices for the purchase of milk have risen in the lifetime of the Board by 1.36d. per gallon and, while it is true that the producer had raised the net increase only to 1.16d. per gallon, it meant that the consumer of liquid milk had had that increase of 1.36d. and something more passed on to him.

Mr. Morrison: I do not know that the report quite bears out the right hon. Gentleman's condensation of it, but all that I am seeking to establish is that, when hon. Members talk of the desirability of a reduction in the price of milk, they must remember that that is not the whole solution of the problem of increasing consumption and, secondly, that if the cost of production and other things are taken into account no evidence of this character is available to show that a margin exists in the producer's pocket.

Mr. Stephen: Is the report available to Members?

Mr. Morrison: Yes. It is the report of the Committee of Investigation for England on the operation of the Milk Marketing Scheme, published in 1936. It is a very interesting document, which I can highly commend. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) drew attention again to the question of the grading of butter. It is not so easy in our country to grade butter as it is in the case of an exporting country, where it is all collected at the ports instead of being dispersed in a multitude of small units; so it is not fair to make a comparison between our own country and Denmark and New Zealand. The utmost that we can do with our present powers is to give assistance to the provision of such instruction of a technical character as can he given through the County Councils' Agricultural Education staff, and to set up grade standards to be observed by packers, which we can do under the National Mark Scheme. We do our best to make -sure that both these devices for improving the quality of home-produced butter are utilised.
The right hon. Baronet also asked me to elaborate some statement that I made during the previous Debate as to the changed proportions of manufacturing and liquid milk. In 1935–36 there were produced 370,000,000 gallons of liquid milk and 211,000,000 of manufacturing. In 1936–37 there were produced 381,000,000 gallons of liquid and 180,000,000 of manufacturing. The truth is that liquid milk sales have gone up by some 3 per cent. and manufacturing sales have gone down by 13½ per cent.

Sir F. Acland: Do we not start on the basis that the total milk production is something like 1,000,000,000 gallons? My


figures are quite different from those of the Minister. His do not add up to anything like that.

Mr. Morrison: I have the explanation. I have the figures for the first eight months of the contract period 1936–37—we have not yet figures for a complete year—also we have not yet the figures for the producer-retailer. The right hon. Baronet wanted to carry the inquiry a little further and he asked how far this improvement, from his point of view, was due to matters of policy and how far to other causes of a less permanent character. In my view the improvement in this respect is partly due to a higher power of purchasing on the part of the industrial community and also, no doubt, to the effect of publicity through milk bars and other schemes of that character. But that is not the whole story. The truth is that last year there was a shortage of hay and a shortage of pasture and, consequently, if the figures that I have given for these two periods of eight months are looked at again, the right hon. Baronet will find that there is a total drop in the gallonage of milk. So the truth is that liquid milk consumption in the last period of eight months increased and left less for the manufacturing market. That is as accurate an explanation as I can give in support of the general statement that I made on the Financial Resolution.
The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield referred to many aspects of this problem which are more suitable for treatment in a long-term Bill but, in so far as his criticisms were directed to the present Measure, perhaps I might say a word or two about them. He is of opinion that there is some kind of moral obliquity in what is now being done about milk prices. It is important for the House to realise exactly what happened in regard to that matter when Parliament legislated in 1934, in the best way it could, to secure the application of 5d. and 6d. as standard prices, and in seeking to define the gap that the Treasury was to fill up, they took the very sensible and obvious course of putting the standard price of 5d. and 6d. at the top, taking at the bottom the formula used by the Milk Board themselves in selling milk for manufacture, and they said that the difference between the price of the Milk Board contracts and the standard price was what the Treasury had

to fill up. But, of course, Parliament was not legislating then by this Act alone. There were other Acts. There were the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931–1933, in which there is power given to a Committee of Investigation to recommend an alteration in the price in circumstances which make it very difficult for any Minister, unless with very good reason, not to abide by it. But that is what happened in this case. There was complaint made under the Act, there was this full investigation completed in April, 1936, and as a consequence an alteration took place. We are taking this earliest opportunity of putting that matter right and we are doing so by the new formula which is enshrined in the Bill.
The other point to which the hon. and gallant Member objected was the treatment meted out to producers by the Milk Board in respect of the second matter in which there was a change, namely, the new definition of net price, contrasting somewhat unfavourably the fact that, whereas the cheese-milk alteration in favour of the producer is not made retrospective, this one is. He seemed to base his argument upon the fact that we were making retrospective something which actually was damaging in its consequences to the producer. No one could ever say that the misunderstandings and difficulties of legal interpretation which have arisen because of the drafting of the 1934 Act, which has now been put right in this regard, have really caused any loss or changed the position of the producer in any degree at all. It is a very complicated matter and one with which I hesitate to weary the House, but I think it is necessary to say why action of this character is retrospective and why the other question cannot be retrospective. If this legal interpretation be right, you will find all sorts of anomalies coming into play. Indeed, it is true to say that the situation is such, that you could never pay anything at all with any sense that you were doing anything that was right, because so many complications would be introduced into the calculations of price that it would never be calculated at all. That is the reason why no claim has been formulated on this interpretation, and that is the reason why we are going back to the origin of the Bill as originally drafted in 1934 and putting it right from that date.


The effect of this legal interpretation was to put into the net milk price items, such as publicity and transport charges, and so on. Let me take the example of collecting charges. If it be right, as the legal interpretation says, that you must take the collecting charge into account, what flows from that? In the first place, everyone knows that farmers pay a different rate with regard to the collection of their milk. Some farmers supplying a factory, for example, incur a collecting charge of ½d. per gallon, others a collecting charge of 1d. per gallon, and others ¾d. a gallon, and the remainder might send the milk direct to the factory themselves and have no charge at all imposed upon them. But all the milk goes to the factory, and though it incurs an infinitely varying degree of collecting charges it would be the one article upon which the whole price has to be charged. You could not in fact find out the net price paid by the consumer on this interpretation unless you were prepared to re-examine the contracts of every single individual supplying milk to the factory and find out the incidence of the collecting charge and of these other things. The task has only to be stated for one to see how ridiculous it is.
The truth of the matter is, that what we are now proposing to do is to alter this error of drafting, if it be an error, to carry on the interpretation of the price that has been adopted since the scheme started, and to make certain by this reenactment that all legal uncertainty is swept away and the matter put in order. It is true that one could say that the effect of the Clause will be to prevent the English Milk Board, on the assumption that this other interpretation is right, from claiming an extra sum of money in respect of the collecting charge to which it was never intended they should be entitled, and to which they have always regarded themselves as not being entitled in the past.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Oh, no. Has the right hon. Gentleman the authority of the Milk Board to say that they never understood that they were entitled to do this? He has stated that he regards this Bill as an umbrella, and I say most definitely that the producers consider that if it is an umbrella, it should cover and protect both the producer and the Treasury alike.

Mr. Morrison: I cannot speak for the Milk Board. The hon. Member may have some other information about it, but I know that on the basis which will be the basis in the Bill all the claims have, in fact, in the past been submitted, and money has been paid upon that basis. I assume, therefore, that the Milk Board have acted on what they know was intended by the formula. Even if the Milk Board were to decide that they were entitled to claim under the formula, no one could tell what the gain to them would be. They would have to go through the contracts of individual producers in order to disentangle the items. Certainly, there is the point to be borne in mind, that when the Bill has gone through, we shall be able to pay the Milk Board the slim of approximately £1,200, which at present we have had to hold back because of the doubt in the matter. I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that these two Amendments are of an entirely different character. First of all, with regard to the cheese-milk price, Parliament legislated in 1934 on the assumption that this was a scheme operated under the Agricultural Marketing Acts with all the possibilities as to the Committee of Investigation and everything else prevailing at the time.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It was the intention of Parliament that, having regard to all the facts that might operate, eventually the producers would get 5d. and 6d.

Mr. Morrison: I have no doubt that that was the intention, but before intentions can be operated they have, to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament, and it is by no means an unusual thing for an Act of Parliament, which intends to attain a certain result, being thwarted from that purpose by interposition of another event. If a certain intention is in the mind of those who draft or frame legislation, and some new factor comes along and prevents your intention from bearing fruit, you legislate at the earliest possible opportunity to fill up the gap, and that is what we are doing now. But when you have doubts cast upon the legal interpretation of words in a Statute which have always been assumed to bear a certain meaning, then, for the removal of doubts and the validation of what has


been done, for all those reasons, it is necessary to go back to the origin of the Statute itself, and in that way put the matter right from the start.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £1,200. Is that the accurate figure?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that that is the accurate figure. It arises from the publicity levy. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, there is a levy of a farthing a gallon made, of which the Milk Board pays half, leaving the purchaser to pay one-eighth of a penny, which does not amount to a very large sum, and that may account for the sum being so small. We are applying a change which is of benefit to the Milk Board.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: You are taking a lot away, and giving a small sum in return.

Mr. Morrison: We are not taking anything away. Whatever is introduced into the Bill, no one can say that it is not a help to the producer. To represent this Bill as though it were taking something away from the producer, is placing a construction upon it which I am sure nobody could possibly sensibly do.

Sir J. Lamb: It does not give to the producer what it was intended to give.

Mr. Morrison: That is a very different matter. What I am saying about the Bill, and why I am asking my hon. Friend to support it, is that we are now going to give him what he wants, and what it was intended he should get in 1934. As my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions has said, it is a very easy thing, in discussing the question of milk, for the Debate to become curdled by substances of a foreign nature which produce an entire change in its physical condition. This is merely a continuing Bill, and we hope that the House will give it a Second Reading in order that other policies more permanent in character will have time to mature and find their way on to the Statute Book.

Mr. Alexander: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a word or two about the operation of Clause 7?

Mr. Morrison: The purpose of Clause 7, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if

he studies it, is to enable the boards to make payments to registered producers in respect of milk sold at a reduced price and to continue the powers which now exist for certain schemes with which he is familiar. I think that the House will not wish, at a stage when we are preparing long-term legislation, that there should be any change in those powers to conduct schemes in the distressed areas, which have been very useful experiments, and other matters of that character. It is in order to enable boards to play their part and make a contribution to these schemes that the Clause has been introduced.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Cross.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 8th July].

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 13.-(Amendments of 22 and 23 Geo. 5, c. 24.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

6.29 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: There is on the Order Paper an Amendment to this Clause, and I wanted to ask whether it was your intention, Captain Bourne, to call the Amendment to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), which deal with the extension of the guaranteed price or deficiency payment on 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 quarters. Sub-section (3) simply prevents overlapping and payment being made in duplicate on barley, oats or wheat.

The Deputy-Chairman: I really thought that the point which the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) wanted to raise on the Amendment would come better on the Motion "That the Clause stand part" and that we could take a decision on that matter.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Price: The subject of this Clause was partly dealt with in the Debate on the Financial Resolution. On that occasion I pointed out that under the Clause it is proposed to raise the amount


of wheat that will be subject to deficiency payments by the amount stated in the Clause. It is very doubtful whether we are right at a time like this to spend further money, where it is raised as in this case out of the consumers by a levy on the price that the consumers have to pay for bread, when it is by no means certain how far we ought to make wheat growing an important and essential part of our agricultural system. I am prepared to admit that there are parts of the country where wheat growing must remain an important factor in the system of rotation, but as presumably all this legislation is aiming at improving the level of cultivation in the event of the country being involved in war, we ought to consider whether cereal growing in war time to meet war-time conditions is the best line for us to adoptd.
There is a very strong case that we should be much better advised if we paid more attention to the increase of our herd and livestock, particularly dairy stock. Presumably, in the event of war the ocean will be kept open, and we ought, therefore, to be able to draw from foreign countries and the Dominions the larger part of our cereal needs. In the Amendment which stands in my name, to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), we are calling attention to the fact that it might reasonably be unwise to impose any further burden on the consumers of the country by extending the liability for contributions under the wheat quota payment, and whether we should not be very much better off to devote our attention and energies in other directions along the lines that I have suggested.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Riley: In this Clause it is proposed to extend the wheat subsidy by approximately 33⅓ per cent. In the Act of 1932 provision was made for the subsidy being available up to a maximum of 6,000,000 quarters of wheat per annum, and it is now proposed to extend that subsidy to cover 8,000,000 quarters per annum. It is well that the Committee should appreciate that under the Act of 1932, when it came into operation in 1933, contributions by way of deficiency payments amounted approximately to £6,000,000. Presumably, therefore, in view of the fact that the subsidy is to be made available for an additional 2,000,000 quarters, if the price of wheat

should sink again to the level of 1933, the deficiency will amount to about £8,000,000. The Committee might well ask what are the grounds upon which this Clause continues the existing subsidy and extends it by 33⅓, per cent., and on what grounds that policy is justified?
I listened with close attention to the explanation given by the Minister on the Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee as to the reasons for increasing the subsidy to £8,000,000 a year from public funds to wheat growers. So far I have only heard two reasons put forward. They were referred to by the Minister of Pensions. The reasons are that it is advisable and desirable, from the point of agriculture and the well-being of the land generally, that the acreage of wheat should be maintained. The second reason is that it is a wise provision from the point of view of Defence in the emergency of war. No doubt both of those are excellent reasons, but they are reasons which could be put forward by people engaged in almost any kind of industry. It is always desirable, from the point of view of individuals and of industry, that they should have assistance to help them to carry on the industry in a safe and insured condition. It is ringing the change on the axiom that most of us are protectionists in what we have to sell, and we are all free traders in what we have to buy. Is that sound public policy? That is what we have to consider. From whatever angle we view this proposal it is not justified and it is not sound policy to go on indefinitely charging the public with the provision of huge annual sums for the assistance of very small sections of the community. It cannot be disputed that the growers of wheat are comparatively an infinitesimal section of the population. I do not say that they are an unimportant section, but from the point of view of numbers compared with the whole population they are very small. Therefore, however desirable it may be to see wheat growing maintained, if it is on an economic basis, it is not a justifiable public policy constantly to ask the whole community to add to the cost of living in order to provide these subsidies.
I should like to call attention to a statement made by the Minister of Pensions, in which he seemed to put forward


what no doubt from his point of view he regarded as conclusive justification for the proposals, and an effective reply to the Opposition. He used these words:
Are the party opposite prepared to see a decline of cereal production, with equanimity? If so, to what level should it go before they become alarmed and take steps to arrest the fall?
We are perfectly entitled to retort by asking whether the Government are prepared to go on indefinitely subsidising agricultural production irrespective of the effect of these subsidies on the cost of living. As to the justification for this policy, I should like to call the Minister's attention to a statement made some time ago by Mr. A. G. Street. Dealing with fostering and encouraging on any terms whatever the extension of wheat growing, he said:
Is British wheat growing so essential that it should be heavily subsidised? Should the urban dweller be called upon to pay more for his bread, even to the extent of a farthing a loaf on the supposition that this is a help to British agriculture? Wheat is grown on only about one acre in 20 and represents only 4 per cent. of the value of the produce sold from farms.
Lord Lymington, a former Member of this House and a practical farmer, says:
At a most optimistic estimate we might double our wheat output not necessarily by increasing largely the acreage of land under arable cultivation but by producing wheat twice in four years under mechanisation instead of once under horses. This would have the effect not of giving more employment but under modern methods of mechanisation, which is the only way we could compete in wheat growing, of depopulation of the land.
These are the considered opinions of people who have practical experience and speak with some authority. It is for these and other reasons that we seek to eliminate this provision to extend the wheat subsidy. There is a further reason. Let me preface it by saying that we of the Labour party are perfectly agreeable to assist in every way in the encouragement of good agriculture and to assist the farmer in every practicable way, but we are not prepared to support policies which inevitably lead in the long run to an increased value of land which goes to the landowner and is capitalised into a subsidy which consolidates into further capital value or increment value.
What is being done to-day is to repeat the previous provisions, with results which are perfectly well known. We have the case, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said last week, of the Corn Production Act, which was passed in time of war for a guaranteed price to be given for corn. In the course of three or four years the value of land rose by 30, 40 and even 50 per cent. I remember that in 1923 Sir Richard Winfrey, a recognised authority on agriculture, gave us as his experience of the operation of the Corn Production Act in Norfolk that the price of farms rose from £40 to £70 and £80 per acre.

Sir J. Lamb: Not in value.

Mr. Riley: Yes, and that rents had risen by 30 per cent. I also recall that Sir Robert Sanders, who was then Minister of Agriculture, said that it was not 30 per cent. but 25 per cent. That was the only difference between them. When the Act came off then the value of land tumbled down, and those farmers who have bought their land were in a very difficult position. On these grounds we are definitely and completely opposed to this policy, which is fundamentally unsound, and not in the interests of the nation as a whole.

6.47 p.m.

Major Braithwaite: It is a surprise to me to hear from the two hon. Members above the Gangway that they cannot confidently help the Wheat Act to continue in operation. Of all the measures which the National Government have passed in connection with agriculture the Wheat Act has been by far the best. It has operated in every case smoothly, caused inconvenience to no one, and brought to the land money which has been extremely valuable during the last two or three years. In my own constituency it has raised the value of the crop by £250,000 a year. It has been absolute salvation to farmers in East Yorkshire. They have been able to draw on the deficiency payment and obtain money on wheat certificates which has helped them to carry through a very difficult time. I should have expected the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) to have encouraged us to grow all the wheat possible. Surely the Labour party want to see more people employed on the land? The hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) said that he would like to see us draw the bulk of our cereal crop from abroad. What is that going to do


for British labour? Apparently, we are going to draw more from abroad if the views of hon. Members of the Labour party become law. This Measure is calculated to put wheat growing on a more substantial basis. The industry can well produce in accordance with its crop rotation the extra quantity that it is called upon to produce, and it will mean most definitely a further sum of £2,000,000 a year in the turnover of farmers. Anything to help arable farming is to be highly commended, and I am certain the Minister is making a substantial contribution to the arable districts. We are not too optimistic about some of the other proposals of the Bill. The proposal for the assistance of barley does not meet with our entire approval.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Clause deals
only with wheat.

Major Braithwaite: I was only pointing out how important this Clause is to our arable districts inasmuch as we cannot look forward to a substantial rise in other crops which some farmers have to grow. I hope the Bill will be passed unanimously. It is most important to those districts which have suffered most severely. If we can get our turnover up, it gives us a chance of getting prices down. If we can get bigger bulk orders it gives us a better chance to make reductions in costs, which are so important. I am hoping that the 2,000,000 quarters a year will help us materially with our costings on the wheat crop. It will mean that more farmers will be able to mechanise still further this essential part of arable farming. I hope the Measure will meet with the same rapid success as the original Act.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. R. Acland: The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) has said that the Government's policy has been popular and has worked smoothly. I agree that it has been popular with producers, and as a landlord myself I stand to gain by a Measure of this kind.

Sir J. Lamb: Why?

Mr. Acland: It will prevent rents going down, and at suitable times it may mean that without my stirring a finger rents will rise. That is bound to be so. Rents are bound to be affected upwards or

downwards by a Measure of this kind. But do not let the Committee imagine that nobody is paying for all this. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour) when Minister of Agriculture, in introducing the Measure, said:
For the first time for 90 years Parliament is being asked to agree to a policy which in the interests of home agriculture will require our consumers to pay a special charge which will be highest when flour is cheapest and lowest when flour is dearest.
The Minister who was responsible for the Act quite clearly said that those who thought nobody would pay for the popularity of the Measure were wrong. This, as for all other forms of agricultural assistance, has to be paid for.
Now I come to the amendments in the scheme which are being made by this Bill. I cannot help regarding them as almost a breach of faith on the part of the Government. Liberal Members who supported the Act did so very largely on account of what was then regarded as being a definite limit to the amount of the subsidy which could be paid; it was not to be paid on a yield of more than 6,000,000 quarters. Of course, that did not prevent wheat producers producing more than the 6,000,000 quarters. It was open to them to produce more if they thought it would pay them, but if they did, then the amount of the subsidy they would get on each quarter would be slightly less. Very definite reasons were given for this maximum by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Minister of Agriculture. He said:
The first is to carry into effect the Government's intention not to encourage an extension of wheat cultivation to land unsuitable to the crop.
What change, what alteration, what new circumstances, have come to light which invalidate those definite reasons given by the Government five years ago for setting the limit of 6,000,000 quarters?
The Government do not regard it as reasonable to provide the guarantee of the standard price for a larger quantity than 6,000,000 quarters.
What has happened in the last five years to change the Government's view of what is "reasonable"? The second reason is the one to which we attach the greatest importance:
The second, and equally important reason for adopting this maximum of 6,000,000 quarters, is that it places a definite limit, and as I believe, a reasonable limit


upon the amount of charge which must be borne by the consumers of flour as a result of the quota payments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1932; col. 969, Vol. 262.]
Again, what has happened in the last five years to change the Government's view as to what is a reasonable burden—I admit that it is not at the moment an actual but a prospective burden—to be placed upon the consumers of flour? In replying to the Debate on the same occasion the then First Commissioner of Works said:
Clearly this is not a Bill for the unlimited expansion of wheat growing. There are two definite considerations—the 6,000,000 quarters and the standard price, reviewable after three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1932; col. 1232, Vol. 262.]
What new considerations have arisen, except of course pressure on the Government from outside. Is there anything to justify this Clause at all, or are we to take it that when the Government use the word "definite" it means definite unless it is pushed?

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I gather from the speeches made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) that their objections to the Clause are two—the burden on the consumer, and that they are not certain how far wheat growing should be further encouraged and that we should pay more attention to livestock. As to the first objection, it is reasonable to say that since the Wheat Act has been in operation the consumer cannot be said to have felt the burden, otherwise the party of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) would not have voted for it. Therefore, it can be assumed that the apprehensions of hon. Members are certainly not justified, because if present prices prevail, no deficiency payment arises, and no burden on the consumer is involved. I think I can also reassure hon. Members as to the future. The peak year in the production of wheat was 1934–35, when the amount of home-grown wheat sold was just under 36,000,000 cwts., the actual figure to which the Clause proposes to increase the amount of wheat eligible for assistance in certain eventualities. If we add 10 per cent. to the acreage of 1935 the additional cost would be £540,000 per annum on the average assuming that wheat prices fell as low as 35s. a quarter, and the

effect would be to increase the price of the 4 lb. loaf by one-twenty-fifth of a penny on the average. The apprehensions which he feels as to some prospective burden on the consumer are most unlikely to be realised. With regard to what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean said, I should like to quote from a speech in which a right hon. Gentleman who is a member of the Liberal party made such a spirited defence of the Wheat Act in 1932. He emphasised a point which, I think, is very important. He said:
It must be remembered that the decline in the acreage devoted to wheat has far-reaching effects upon other branches of the agricultural industry. When arable land is laid down to grass the balance between summer and winter crops is offset.
and he went on to elaborate that very sound observation which, to my mind, is a convincing argument for not upsetting the balance. I know that the hon. Member for Dewsbury quoted Mr. A. G. Street. I could quote another authority, Professor Stapledon, in precisely the opposite direction, but I think that it would be a pity if we allowed this discussion to develop into a vendetta between the grassland and the cereal growers. No one can say that the acreage of wheat we are likely to obtain by this Bill is going to upset the balance of agriculture or is likely greatly to increase the present production of wheat. I look back with some regret to 1846, when I see that we grew over 4,000,000 acres. There is no question of getting back to that. In 1913 we grew about 1,756,000 acres, and in 1936, 1,790,000. In 1935 and the year before we exceeded that by some 50,000 or 60,000 acres. We are not going by this Bill to encourage an excessive growing of wheat. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) asked what has changed. I think that he has forgotten that behind this Bill there is the underlying wish of the House that, from the point of view of Defence, agriculture shall be put in a better position. Defence and wheat growing are bound up with fertility and with our own nourishment. We grow at present some 25 or 30 per cent. of the wheat we consume. It is common sense and common prudence from the point of view of the fertility of our soil and the nourishment of our people, whether there is an emergency


or not, that this extension should be acceded to.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: The speech of the Minister of Pensions was just about as unconvincing a statement in reply to the Debate that one could possibly imagine. The position we have to face is that, whatever the case was for introducing the subsidy in 1931–32, the position that operated then does not operate to-day. We would grant the Minister of Agriculture that there may have been a case for some aid—I will not say in the direction in which it was given—with regard to the growing of wheat, because there had been proved to be a progressive decline in the acreage which was put down to wheat. Whether or not that help should have been derived under a procedure which put the burden on the consumer is an entirely different matter, and a matter for argument. But let us take the case of the need for resisting a decline in acreage and let us look at the actual results of the policy of the 1932 Act. The Minister of Pensions hinted shortly at the change in the acreage. If you take the figures in detail, so far from being an argument for the Government's Clause, they are an argument in an entirely different direction. In 1931 the acreage in England and Wales was 1,190,000. By 1935, with a subsidy, it had risen to 1,772,000, an increase of about 580,000 acres.
Therefore, it may be said that if the real aim of the subsidy was to resist the progressive decline in wheat acreage it was entirely successful, and although there had been a gradual improvement in world wheat prices up to 1936 and the amount of the subsidy had operated in a downward direction, it is clear that the farmers were sufficiently remunerated in the price of their wheat to continue expanding their acreage. If that was the situation, I cannot see the necessity for introducing this Amendment in an upward direction, especially in view of the point made by the Minister of Pensions that the present price would not necessitate any subsidy. When you come to look at the incidence of the subsidy payments in the last five years you are bound to take into account the effect on the consumer of bread. The Minister of Pensions says that the consumer has not

suffered. The only argument he adduced in support of that was that if they had been going to suffer, the Liberals of the day would not have supported the Bill. That is no argument; it is not even a good debating point. The real fact is that the subsidy was operating at one time when the world price of wheat was as low as 23s., 24s., and 25s. and for a large period of the first two or three years there were deficiency payments ranging from 3s. 6d. to 4s. 6d. a sack of flour. When the subsidy was working at that rate it meant a direct addition of ½d. a quartern loaf to the consumer's loaf.
There is nothing in the acreage point which justifies an extension of the limit, because the limit in the 1932 Act and the rate of subsidy in the 1932 Act have induced an increased acreage for the production of wheat. Let us look at what the future may be. The Government propose to raise the actual figure from 27,000,000 cwts. to 36,000,000 cwts. That involves the possibility that if over a period of years there is a decline again in the world price of wheat, the actual amount of the subsidy, instead of being round about, as it was in 1933–34, £7,000,000 a year, may be as high as £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 a year. Even if you could produce the full 36,000,000 cwts. of wheat in such circumstances it would still only be a minority of the wheat to be used as millable wheat. I doubt whether there would be more than 15 or 16 per cent. in any mixture made in these circumstances by millers at the mill, and therefore you will have to marry that into the price of flour from the general mixture, and the consumer will have to have a charge made upon the total millable flour used of something like £9,000,000 if the world price falls again to the level of 1933–34.
I cannot see what case there is on the economic side for fixing that now except that the Government are offering inducements to the landlords for raising the rents in regard to the stability of price to be given for this cereal crop. There was a smile from the Government Benches when the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) was speaking as a landlord, but surely no representative of the Ministry is going to deny that when a stabilised price is provided for a farm which has a large section of it devoted to this side of agriculture, the rent is prevented from falling or, when


the farm changes hands, the rent is raised. The net result is that it accrues to the benefit of the landlord.
With regard to the relation of this proposal to the defence of the country, the Minister of Pensions was very curt and short about this argument. He said that if one authority were quoted in one direction, he could quote an authority in another direction and left it at that. But it is not as easy as that. The position was put by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) on the Money Resolution, and any one who has studied the articles written in the "Times" by Sir William Beveridge knows that the Minister cannot dismiss the case like that. What is the best line to take with regard to food production in wartime? It seems to me that the case put by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean is unanswerable, and that is that it is unwise to use too much of your land for cereal production. If you consider the question of strategy and the passage of food commodities over the wide seas and the narrow seas respectively, the greatest difficulty will probably not be the passage of cereal crops over the wide seas but of other classes of foods, particularly the kind of dairy products and animals fed from dairy produce which come from Scandinavia, and it would be infinitely wiser not to spend your resources on overstressing the production of cereals, but to take every possible step to see that your country is producing that kind of product which will be in the greatest danger from passage through the Narrow Seas in time of war. Certainly that is not the cereal crop.
I submit that the Minister of Pensions has made no real attempt to answer the main argument, and I think the Minister of Agriculture had better come to the rescue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley {Mr. T. Williams) about the personal qualities of the Minister of Pensions, but we are dealing with the policy of the Government, and it is that which we are attacking. In the first place, we say that, on the grounds that

the limited subsidy from 1931 onwards succeeded in extending the acreage by 580,000, there is no case for extending it now. Secondly, we submit that the method of dealing with the subsidy by making it a levy on the consumer will inflict an unwarrantable hardship, when world prices fall, on the consumer, and especially upon the working-class consumer. Thirdly, we say that, in relation to the strategy of the situation in preparing for a time of war, the country would be far better advised not to concentrate upon cereals, but upon the raising of dairy products and the like, which would be in most danger in the Narrow Seas.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Paling: The Government have instituted a new principle in this wheat subsidy. For the last few years the farming industry has pleaded for help and subsidies on the grounds that the farmers were poverty-stricken owing to the low prices of the commodities they produced. It is on those grounds that they have been given subsidies. Having been so successful in asking for subsidies because commodity prices were low, they have now turned round and are asking for commodities the prices of which are admittedly high enough to give them a profit, guarantees of subsidies in future. The Government, in this Measure, are guaranteeing a subsidy in future on a commodity the price of which at the present time gives the farmer a profit. I do not know where it will all end. Farmers are now asking for subsidies in connection with commodities which are profitable. The next thing that we shall be discussing will be a demand from the farming community that the Government should subsidise wages, pay rents and guarantee the profits of the farmers. Even then I doubt whether they would be satisfied.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 112.

Division No. 278.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Atholl, Duchess of
Beit, Sir A. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Bennett, Sir E. N.


Albery, Sir Irving
Balniel, Lord
Blair, Sir R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Boothby, R. J. G.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bossom, A. C.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Beechman, N. A.
Boulton, W. W.




Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Petherick, M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gridley, Sir A. B
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Radford, E. A.


Bull, B. B.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Butler, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannah, I. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Remer, J. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Channon, H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abboy)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, S. H. M.(Darwen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salmon, Sir I.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hunter, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Savery, Sir Servington


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Selley, H. R.


Cox, H. B. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Craven-Ellis, W.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Keeling, E. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dawson, Sir P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Storey, S.


De Chair, S. S.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


De la Bère, R.
Levy, T.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, W. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Doland, G. F.
Loftus, P. C.
Tate, Mavis C.


Donner, P. W.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Dower, Major A. V. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Drewe, C.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Turton, R. H.


Duggan, H. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Eastwood, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Magnay, T.
Warrender, Sir V.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Watt, G. S. H.


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Markham, S. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Furness, S. N.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wise, A. R.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morgan, R. H.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Goldie, N. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Wragg, H.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.



Grant-Ferris, R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Patrick, C. M.
Mr. Cross and Mr. Munro.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Perkins, W. R. D.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Dyke Bromfield, W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Ede, J. C.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Cape, T.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Adamson, W. M.
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Ammon, C. G.
Cocks, F. S.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Cove, W. G.
Foot, D. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dalton, H.
Frankel, D.


Banfield, J. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Gardner, B. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Barr, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Day, H.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Broad, F. A.
Dobbie, W.
Grenfell, D. R.







Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McEntee, V. La T.
Sanders, W. S.


Groves, T. E.
McGhee, H. G.
Sexton. T. M.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacLaren, A.
Shinwell, E.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maclean, N.
Silkin, L.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simpson, F. B.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Marshall, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Maxton, J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Messer, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Montague, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holdsworth, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, C.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Thorne, W.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Kelly, W. T.
Parker, J.
Walker, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Lathan, G.
Ridley, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Leach, W.
Riley, B.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Lee, F.
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leonard, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Leslie, J. R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Exchequer grants for defraying land drainage expenses in England and Wales.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: Under Sub-section (1) of this Clause, I take it there will be a question of additional labour being employed in connection with the extension of drainage work, and in those circumstances we are naturally concerned that the terms and conditions of employment for such work, which is of a somewhat specialised character, should be adequate. I have reason to think that some instructions have already been issued to the authorities to the effect that the rates of wages to be paid for this drainage work are to be restricted to the agricultural rates in the district. This particular sort of work requires some specialised knowledge and it is very heavy in character. For those reasons, there does not seem to be any direct analogy between the agricultural rates and the rates to be paid for this sort of work. Moreover, if it be argued that there are some advantages accruing to agricultural workers, that argument will not apply to the people with whom I am now concerned. Apparently they would be introduced into the district and would not have cheap rents, gardens, or any of the alleged perquisites attaching to the agricultural labourers. There is not the same degree of permanency in their work, and, therefore, on the basis of a comparison between the two types of labour, there does not appear to be any justification for the instruction which, I understand, has been issued.
We would like an assurance that adequate wages will be paid for work of this kind, that reasonable conditions shall be applied to it, and that in no circumstances shall the present rate of agricultural wages be used for the purpose of debasing the wages at which additional labour is to be employed on this drainage work. If my assumption is well founded that an instruction of the kind I have indicated has been issued, I think we are entitled to such an assurance.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: It seems rather hard that county councils or other local authorities who have already started drainage works will not receive any grant because the works have been commenced before the date specified. Could not the grant be extended to cases where such work has already been started?

7.31 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) will realise that these men will be paid by the local authorities concerned, and it will be for those local authorities to settle with the men the conditions of labour. With regard to the instruction which he apprehended had been sent out by my Department in reference to this work, I know nothing of it, and I am not aware that anything more than consultation has already proceeded between the Department and the local authorities on this matter. The hon. Member also mentioned the contrast between the conditions under which this work would be performed and those of agricultural work. In the country districts a great deal of this work will be done by agricultural


workers. The scheme is timed to operate in the winter period in order that there shall be work available for agricultural workers at times when they would not be employed on farm work. Therefore, the contrast between agricultural workers and those who will be engaged on this work is not so real as the hon. Member apparently supposes it to be.
The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) asked me about drainage works which are now in progress. I am afraid that until the Bill becomes law we have not the necessary authority to make grants in respect of those drainage operations. Of course, a drainage authority has to carry out its duty, which is to drain, and I feel that it would, in some sense, be putting a premium upon the inaction of authorities who have not done their work in the past but have waited for this assistance, if we were not to make the grant start upon a fixed date. Our intention is that as soon as the Bill becomes law, schemes will be made out for work in the winter months, and it is that particular class of work that we are anxious to encourage, very largely because of those same labour difficulties to which reference has already been made. Although I will consider the matter, all I can say now is that we intend to make these grants in respect of new works started after 15th October next.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: We are not quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, as far as he knows, no such circular as that mentioned has been sent out. Surely his Department knows whether or not any circular has been sent to the local drainage authorities conveying the hint or the instruction that workers on drainage schemes are to be paid no more than the rate of agricultural wages in the area. If such a circular has been sent out it is little less than a scandal. In my own division we have had terrible floods four times since 1931, and many times in some of the areas round about, where these local drainage boards operate. The whole of that district is honeycombed with coalmines. There is a great deal of unemployment, and, obviously, the first people who will be called upon to do this very laborious work will be

ex-miners. To tell men who have to pay 12s. or 13s. a week for rent and rates, that they are to receive only the 33s. or 34s. of an agricultural labourer for this work would be an outrage.
I hope if anything of the kind suggested has been done by the Department, the right hon. Gentleman will look into it at once. We do not wish to vote against this Clause, but if it to be operated in the spirit indicated by what we have heard, I am half-inclined to advise my hon. Friends that we should vote against it, and against every other part of the Bill. The Minister, for the sake of his own reputation, ought to ascertain at once whether such an instruction has been sent out because, if so, I feel sure that Members in all parts of the Committee would not continue their support of the Bill. It is not sufficient to regard this matter solely in terms of Gloucestershire or Worcestershire. There are other parts of the country not purely rural where this work will have to be done, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see to it that the local authorities are allowed to pay the appropriate wages for this heavy work, without any limitation to agricultural rates of wages.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should not like undue heat to be generated about what may be merely a figment of the imagination. If hon. Members opposite feel the necessity of probing this matter further, the proper thing to do is to give me notice so that I may make inquiries, but I tell the Committee frankly that, as far as I know, there is nothing at all in this suggestion. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Simpson) has produced no copy of the circular, and it would be a great pity if we were to waste a lot of time over something which may have no existence in fact. I understand that the engagement and employment of these men will be a matter for the drainage authorities concerned. It will be for them to fix the appropriate wages. I realise that in districts like that represented by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) it will not be agricultural labour which will be employed. The kind of labour employed will depend on the scale and character of the work in various districts. A lot of it will be highly skilled engineering work. In parts


of Lincolnshire, for instance, where the land is actually below the sea level, it is not a question of digging a ditch but of pumping the water up to a height at which it will run out. Clearly the character of the work must vary from district to district, and the type of labour employed must vary also according to the necessities of the case.

Mr. T. Williams: Do I understand that the Minister is prepared to make a statement on the Report stage as to whether such a circular has been issued or not?

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I am astounded at the Minister's statement. To-day is 12th July, and the circular, I understand, was issued on 5th July, and the Department must have known that this matter was due for discussion in this Committee. The Minister, however, is apparently still unaware that the circular was issued with this instruction in it. Paragraph 4 (a) of the circular says that the work will be confined mainly to the winter months, 15th October to 30th April, and then in paragraph 4 (b) these words occur:
The wages paid will be restricted to the local agricultural rate except in the case of schemes that are in the vicinity of big towns or industrial areas where higher wages are general. In such cases the rate of wages will be that commonly recognised in the district for the type of work involved.
Wherever the work is to be done, the wages should not be restricted to the agricultural rate, and that for three reasons. First, it is highly skilled work of the kind that is done by navvies whose rate of pay is considerably higher than that of agricultural labourers. Secondly, the agricultural worker generally gets some sort of addition to his money wages in respect of a cottage or in other ways which these workers will not get. Thirdly, the agricultural worker lives close to his work, whereas these people may be involved in travelling expenses. To expect this kind of work to be done at agricultural rates is entirely wrong, and I hope that when the Report stage comes the Minister will give us an assurance upon it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Now!"] It would not matter so much if the statement in the circular were approximate, but there is a definite restriction. I hope the Minister will cancel this circular and issue a much less ungenerous instruction dealing with the engagement of these workers.

7.42 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I am not going to argue whether such a circular has been issued or not. That is a matter of fact which can be dealt with by the Minister. The qualification quoted by the last speaker, however, makes a great deal of difference to the original statement. If you are going to allow larger wages to be paid to men to do this work in agricultural areas, than you permit the agriculturist to pay to his own men, you will further deplete the land of the labour which is necessary to maintain fertility. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap labour."] It is not a question of asking for cheap labour. We have asked for conditions under which we can give better pay. What I am saying is that hon. Members are asking here that wages should be paid which are not permitted to agricultural workers.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: Do I understand that the hon. Member seriously puts forward the proposition that whatever the employment may be in an agricultural area, the worker must accept the low standard set for agriculture?

Sir J. Lamb: It is agricultural work. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It has been stated by the Minister that this work will be done during the winter time by those who would otherwise be engaged in agriculture and it is a part of agricultural work. No one objects to paying more wages, but I do object to the demand that another section of the community should receive higher pay than you permit the rural worker to receive.

Mr. Holdsworth: Does the hon. Member deny what the Minister said, that some of this work might have to be done by skilled engineers? What has it to do with the farmer how much will be paid to these men? The farmer is not going to pay the wages. It will make no difference to him. I understand there are certain perquisites which a farm labourer gets. Surely he is not going to be drawn away from his own work to this work for these wages.

Sir J. Lamb: I did not mention the word "farmer," except to say that he is willing to pay his own men. I said that the hardship was on the agricultural worker.

Mr. Holdsworth: What the hon. Member was suggesting was that you should


not set the standard too high so that the farmer could not compete with it. Now I want to say a word or two to the Minister. In these agricultural debates we have always appreciated the real efforts that the right hon. Gentleman has made to answer the points raised, so I do not want to say anything harsh about him, but it is curious that he should say that he cannot conceive of a circular being sent out before the Bill has become an Act. Is the Department entitled to send out a circular such as that which has been mentioned before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament? Where is the authority of the House of Commons? I want to challenge the authority of the Department, either of the Department of Agriculture or any other Department, to send out a circular which depends for its justification upon a Bill becoming an Act. Seeing that the Minister did not know that this circular had gone out, and seeing that he acknowledged by his own speech that he would be astounded if it had gone out, I think I am justified in moving, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Paling: In view of the statement of the Minister that he has no knowledge of this circular having gone out, may I ask whether it is the work of his Department, or whether it is a usual course, when a Bill like this is in preparation, for a secret circular of this description to be sent out by the Department's officials without the knowledge of the Minister himself? I am assuming that it has gone out, and I would like to ask the Minister whether it is a usual course that such a circular should have been sent out.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is the fact that in any Government Department—and I think perhaps in the Ministry of Agriculture in particular—a vast number of forms and circulars of various sorts go out. Supposing local authorities write and ask what is the sort of idea that we have of these grants, because they want to know as soon as possible—and there has been a great deal of consultation between the local authorities and the Ministry on these matters—it is usual to reply. If I had

had notice that this matter was going to be raised, I could have given the Committee the facts, but this matter has gone through all sorts of changes. I am assuming that the circular has gone out, because the hon. Member opposite made himself responsible for the accuracy of his statement to that effect, and it does not surprise me that a circular giving a sketch of the sort of work contemplated should have gone out. But it is obvious that not one pennyworth of wages can be paid for this work unless this Bill is passed by the Committee and the House. This has been done in order to give as much advance knowledge of the intentions of the Department as possible, but the whole thing is dependent on the passing of this Bill by Parliament.
To return to my point as to how the thing has grown and changed, the hon. Member's statement was that all labour was to be paid at the agricultural wage rate, and then the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), quite properly, raised the case of industrial workers who are employed in the locality, and I replied that I anticipated that the wages would be settled by the local authorities in the district. We then find that when what purported to be a quotation from the actual circular by the hon. Member opposite, who appears to have more exact knowledge of it than anyone else, is made, it says that if agricultural workers are employed during the winter months, they are to get agricultural wages, but if men are employed who are in the vicinity of an industrial town—that is what I understood—or in another district, they are to get the wages of the district, the wage which is normally given for labour of that sort. That, I should imagine, is a very different thing from saying that anyone who is employed, no matter who he is, is to get no more than the rate under the Agricultural Wages Act.
May I suggest as a convenient course that, as the matter has been raised, I will certainly look into it to see what has been done, and I will take an opportunity of making a statement or answering a question on the subject in the House of Commons at an early date, but the Committee would think me, I am sure, very rash if, on my present scanty knowledge of the exact terms of this so far undisclosed document, I were to make any definite statement upon it. [Interruption.] Well,


it is clear that we all have different ideas about it—the hon. Member for Don Valley made a speech on one particular point, for instance—but I am not going to make a speech on the matter until I know what the facts are. As I say, I will gladly look into it in order to see what has actually happened, and if any hon. Member puts a question on it at Question Time, or raises it on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, I will give what information I have, but now we are considering this Bill in Committee. Whether this circular has been sent out or not makes no difference to the question whether or not this power should be given to make grants to local authorities for drainage purposes, which is quite a different point. On the question whether or not a circular has been sent out, I ask the Committee to receive the assurance from me that I will disclose everything in regard to it as soon as I know what the facts are.

Mr. Holdsworth: On a point of Order. Is it not possible for you, Captain Bourne, to accept my Motion to report Progress in order that the Minister may have time to bring the matter before the House and let us know, before we take this vote, on what grounds we take it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already given my decision on that point.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I admit that I think the Minister will give us all the knowledge he has on the subject in the future, but I do not think that alters the situation. It appears to be fairly evident that this circular has gone out, but the right hon. Gentleman rides away on the fact that since the first statement was made there has been some alteration. So there has, to the extent of the statement that, near a town, town wages have to be paid, but the fact remains, and it has not been denied by the right hon. Gentleman, that during the last quarter of an hour he has had some kind of discussion with his officers, and I think he should know now whether or not this circular has gone out. The position has not altered to this extent, that the wage rates to be paid to the agricultural labourer who is employed on this work are to be the agricultural rates. If that is so, we deny the right of the Government to do that. We do not want to pass this Clause to-night

knowing that the agriculural labourer is going to be paid that rate. Is it a fact that in an agricultural district agricultural rates of wages have to be paid by a drainage authority? Of course not. They have had to pay considerably higher rates in many cases.
I understand that under this Bill, if a drainage authority can get agricultural labourers to do this work in the future, the rates that have been paid in the past are to be reduced because agricultural labourers are to do it. Is that to be the case? Suppose they cannot get enough agricultural labourers to do the work, and they have two sets of people working side by side at it. Are they then to have two rates of wages? Which rate is to be the rate paid, the higher or the lower? In everything in this Bill, or in any Bill brought before this House, the agricultural labourer always has to get the worst end of the stick. He has always been the lowest paid man in the country, and he will always have to be if the present Government continue with their legislation, yet they come down here with tears running down their cheeks and with sobs in their voices, protesting love for the agricultural labourer, and on every occasion they rob him on every conceivable point. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) protests his love for the agricultural labourer, but he does not want him to be paid any higher wages, whether he is doing an agricultural job or any other kind of job.

Sir J. Lamb: The hon. Member must not make a statement which he cannot substantiate.

Mr. Paling: The hon. Member in his speech made a statement to this effect, that he does not think the agricultural labourer ought to be paid more than agricultural rates if he has to do this work.

Sir J. Lamb: I am sorry that the hon. Member opposite cannot listen to anything but his own speech. If he had listened to mine, he would have heard that my complaint was that you would not allow the agricultural labourer to have a decent wage, whereas you wanted somebody else to come in and have a better wage.

Mr. Paling: If I have done the hon. Member an injustice, I apologise, but I understood him to mean that if the


agricultural labourer did this job, and if he was getting an agricultural labourer's wage, he had no reason to quarrel with that.

Sir J. Lamb: Sir J. Lamb indicated dissent.

Mr. Paling: Well, I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow and see who is right. In any event, that is the intention of the circular that has been issued. In the last Clause of this Bill a new principle has been enunciated. In future you are going to guarantee a subsidy on a commodity which is at present a profitable commodity. In the past we have had subsidies on commodities because they did not pay a profit, but now you increase the wheat subsidy by 33⅓ per cent. and guarantee a subsidy on a commodity which is at present paying for itself.

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into that question now.

Mr. Paling: That was by way of illustration of the difference in treatment between the landlord and farmer and the agricultural labourer. With all the vigour of which we are capable, we protest against this, and I hope that between now and the next stage of this Bill the right hon. Gentleman will have taken some steps with regard to this business. I hope that if this circular exists to the extent pointed out by my hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it and allow the rates paid to an agricultural labourer to be the same as those paid to anybody else for doing the same class of work.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), with considerable vigour, put the case for paying the agricultural labourer a higher rate for doing drainage work than he would otherwise get, and I think there is a good deal of point in that demand. A good many agricultural labourers, when they do drainage work in my district, are paid by the chain and not by the day. I expect the Minister will go into this question when the Bill is being administered, if the Socialist Opposition on this Clause does not prevent its being administered. The point that I want to put to the hon. Member for Wentworth is that in 1929–31 the

Socialist Government gave grants for drainage, and I had knowledge of how those grants were being worked. The amount of wages then given to labourers under that scheme was restricted to the agricultural wage. The same principle actuated the Socialist Government in 1929 that exists to-day, but I hope that the Minister will take a kinder attitude than the Socialist Government took, and be more generous than they were to agricultural labourers who do drainage work.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: I am not surprised to hear of this circular, because those of us who have to deal with labour in the rural districts know that there has been an endeavour to keep the labourers' wages down to those paid to agricultural workers. I can understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), who is fearful lest the agricultural labourer should find that there are men engaged on drainage work who are receiving a higher wage than he receives. In order to prevent the agricultural worker thinking in terms of a higher wage, he wishes by this circular to prevent the payment of wages to which men engaged on drainage work are entitled. I would not mind so much if the highest rate of wages paid to agricultural workers was taken. If they would pay 49s., which the London County Council pay to their agricultural labourers, there would be less ground for complaint. Throughout the country, however, wages far below this are paid for civil engineering work such as drainage. I would hesitate to think what would happen if a local authority asked navvies to work for the rate which is paid to agricultural workers.
It looks as though the Government have now entered the field in the depression of wages. We can see no justification for this circular except to keep wages down. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is a proviso which refers to areas close to industrial areas, but what right has any authority to pay for drainage work the same inadequately low rate which is paid to agricultural labourers? I do not know what is to be said of a Government Department which, in anticipation of a Bill being passed, has instructed the districts that they need not pay the correct wage, and says to them, "We as a Government Department will help you to keep


wages down so that the agricultural labourer will not have any justification for demanding a higher wage." It looks as though the Government are now joining the farmers in the determination to keep wages down. Many contracts for the laying of water pipes or cables are now being carried out in rural areas, and the farmers have implored those who are supervising such work to keep the wages down lest the feelings of the agricultural labourer should be aroused. Now the Government have joined in.
I do not know whether the circular deals with the conditions under which grants are to be made, but it looks as though the authorities are being assured that a condition of the grant is to keep wages down to the level of agricultural labourers. This is a surprising action on the part of the Government, and it justifies the attempt of the hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) to report Progress in order that we should have the circular and the reason for it. Surely a Department does not send out circulars dealing with questions of policy without consulting the Minister? If it does, it puts the Minister into a secondary position, and I am amazed that he is prepared to submit to it. We must vote against this Clause as a protest against a circular being sent out which will have the effect of keeping wages down to the miserable and inadequate level of most farm labourers.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to make a brief statement which will enable us to get on to the next Clause? He has already said that he has not accurate knowledge of the contents of the circular and that he will inquire what it really contains. Could he add, for the satisfaction of my hon. Friends, that if he discovers that the circular contains words which can legitimately bear the interpretation that my hon. Friends fear that they bear, he will see that it is withdrawn or amended? If he will do that, I am sure it will meet the desire of my hon. Friends.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I hope we shall keep the Debate going until the circular is produced. It is at least half-an-hour since this point was first raised, and I should have thought it was a simple matter for

the right hon. Gentleman to send to his Department for the circular and to give the terms of it to the Committee. It is rather strange that it has not been sent for and produced. We find ourselves in a position of great difficulty which is entirely the fault, I will not say of the Minister, but of the Ministry. When we are faced with a Clause like this we are entitled to make inquiries as to the intentions of the Department and as to the way they propose to work machinery which they are now setting up. In this case the Minister cannot give us that information for the obvious reason that the intentions of the Department, which they have already decided, are contained in this circular, and it is not available to Members of the Committee for this Debate. The Minister made an astonishing defence. He asked whether hon. Members realised the thousands of circulars that have to go out from a Government Department. Are we to understand that thousands of circulars have gone out as the result of Clause 14? Obviously not. Them can be only one or two dealing with this part of the Bill, and it must be a simple matter to produce the circular from the archives of the Department. One would have expected that when we are discussing an important part of the Bill such as this, the circular would have been available in case any hon. Member chose to ask for it.
No answer has been attempted to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) and by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), that this circular announces the intentions of the Department in advance of their receiving statutory powers under this Clause. I do not say that in no case is a Department justified in sending out a circular in advance of a Bill receiving Parliamentary assent. There are a good many cases in which a Department does well to advise the local authorities of its intention in future, but this is a case where we propose to make grants of public money to local authorities. Some hon. Member might have proposed an Amendment saying that those grants shall not be payable unless the local authorities undertake to pay a certain scale of wages. If an Amendment of that kind had been inserted in the Bill, it would have made that circular waste paper. In this case, where we are dealing with grants of money to local authorities on certain conditions, it was


improper for the Department to anticipate the intentions and wishes of the House of Commons. When the Bill is passed we shall be unable to deal with it by way of question and answer, and the Committee has surely a right to know the terms of the circular before we are asked to vote upon the Clause.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I have a case before me which shows what is being done behind the scenes. I was not aware at the time I received it that the circular had been sent out, but it would appear that the case is one of the results of the circular. A man was sent by the Employment Exchange on some drainage works involving a trench 4 feet 6 inches in depth. When he came to have his card stamped it was stamped with the agricultural labourers' stamp. The result is that the man cannot get any benefit. Unless we watch this Clause very closely we shall have hundreds of such cases of men being sent on this kind of work and being classed as agricultural workers, although the work is entirely different from agricultural work. If anything can be done to prevent agricultural wages being paid for a grade of work which ordinarily carries with it wages higher than that paid for ordinary agricultural work, words ought to be inserted in the Bill to safeguard the men engaged on such work.
Evidently the Minister thought that this Clause would go through without any protest. We would then have been placed in the position, if we raised any protest when the Bill had become an Act, of being told that it was too late to make any complaint. Now that we have the opportunity to make the position clear we ought to take it. I ask the Minister to realise what the position is and to give us some assurance that the matter will be further examined and that we can deal with it on the Report stage. I am to meet the Minister of Labour on the case I mentioned, and I shall urge upon him the point of view which I am putting before the Committee that this is one of the cases which ought to be recognised as "general scheme" cases and not come under agricultural insurance.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Broad: I hope the Committee will not pass this Clause in the unsatisfactory state in which it is. The Minister says

that he will consider, will ascertain, and so on. I think that if he has got any reply sufficient time has elapsed for us to have it, because he has very efficient channels of information available and is in constant contact with his Department by telephone. Therefore, it seems to me that he has no reply to what is an attempt by bureaucracy to decide fundamental policy for the Minister. The Minister casts his eyes upwards and shows me the whites when I say that this is fundamental policy. It is 40 years ago since Parliament decided that there should be a fair wage clause in every Government contract. That was a policy. We have long urged that that policy should be applied in the case of all works to which Governments grants are given. Here we have the Department saying that not only shall the fair wage clause not apply in this case, in which Government assistance is given to these drainage schemes, but that the rate of wages shall not be the rate agreed between workers and employers in that industry for the district nor the rate which is generally paid, but must be a sweated rate, an underpaid rate. Therefore, everyone holding a trade union ticket who goes on the job will be blacklegging his fellows, because the rate for that work is considerably above agricultural workers' pay.
That is the position; and this policy, forsooth, is decided in secret. It is not in a public communication, but in a communication sent, apparently, to special persons who are in official positions elsewhere. The position is that to suit the interests of a certain section of employers work which should be done at the proper rates of the district is to be paid for at a less rate. That is black-legging by a Government Department. If a man will not accept that work, then he is to be deprived of his unemployment benefit. This is a very serious matter. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) objected because exception was taken to what he was saying. He said that he was afraid that if higher wages were paid it would deplete the ranks of agricultural workers.

Sir J. Lamb: I must defend myself when statements are attributed to me which I did not make. The objection I had was that others should be compelled to work in agricultural areas at higher rates than were directed to be paid to agricultural workers.

Mr. Broad: The hon. Member did say that, but he also said that to pay a higher rate would deplete the ranks of agricultural workers.

Sir J. Lamb: Quite naturally.

Mr. Broad: Therefore, the position is that if in the winter time an agricultural worker is not wanted by his employer and gets other work, although that work is normally paid for at a higher rate, he must not be paid for it more than the agricultural workers' rate, lest he should not want to go back to the sweated wage of the farms.

Sir J. Lamb: Who is sweating him?

Mr. Broad: He is not sweated. He has not enough fat on him to sweat, with the wage he is getting to-day. Since 1931 money has been handed out by left hand and right hand to agriculture, but the agriculturist still begrudges a decent standard of life to the agricultural worker.

Sir J. Lamb: No.

Mr. Broad: That is the fundamental code of some of the agricultural interests, and I am afraid it is a fundamental principle with this Government, if it allows such a restriction as this, that the wages must be restricted to the wages of agricultural workers. The Minister tries to ride off from the charge by saying that in areas adjacent to big towns the higher wage may be paid. Perhaps there may be opportunities for trade union action there, and opportunities for agitation, but if it be right that the trade union, or recognised, wage for that class of work shall be paid near towns, then on principle it ought to be paid in areas remote from towns. It is the same work. I hope the Committee will not pass this Bill until we have an undertaking from the Minister that the men engaged on this work shall be paid the rate of wages agreed upon between employers and employés in that district, or else the rate of wages which is recognised as the proper wage in the area. He ought not, in order to suit those who seek to base the prosperity of their industry on the degradation and semi-starvation of their workers, to take work away from men who have obtained a standard of livelihood by trade union action, and have it done at sweated wages by those who are thrown on one side by the farmer in the winter because, for the time

being, he has no further use for their services.
The farmers are not concerned about drainage, but want some alternative work to keep their workers near them in the winter time, so that they can save wages at the expense of the general community. I hope the Committee will realise that we cannot bring prosperity back to agriculture by drainage schemes or doles or subsidies. Prosperity in agriculture will be based on a decent wage and on decent conditions for those who do the actual work. I say to the hon. Member for Stone that when he and his friends are as keen to see that their workers get a decent wage and a decent standard of life as they pretend they are, the poorest paid workers in the towns will do everything that is necessary to ensure that that wage can be paid, but all that they see at present is money being doled out with both hands to the farmer, without any restrictive conditions, but only restrictions on the worker.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have now got the mysterious document. It sets out in an introductory paragraph that there have been under consideration these proposals with which the Committee are now familiar. I think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and other hon. Members who were very anxious to secure the control of this House over finance, will be glad to notice that there is in it the statement:
Subject to the provision of moneys by Parliament, assistance will be available to your Council on the following conditions.
Then there is a reference to the grant of 33⅓ per cent., and it goes on to mention the 50 per cent. grant for machinery, and more extensive works. Paragraph 4 says:
In addition, having regard to the paramount necessity of minimising any disturbance of normal agricultural operations, the following specific conditions will be imposed:
Work will be confined mainly to the winter months (15th October to 30th April), but this period may be extended in exceptional cases where the scheme has been unavoidably delayed by had weather. Councils carrying out work in areas devoted to sugar-beet production should endeavour to arrange for the work not to be commenced until the bulk of the beet is lifted.
Wages paid will be restricted to the local agricultural rate, except in the case of schemes that are in the vicinity of big towns


or industrial areas where higher wage rates are in operation. In such cases the rate of wages will be that commonly recognised in the district for the type of work involved.
I am informed that these were the conditions current for this work from 1921 to 1926, which included the period of the first Labour Government. I have not continued my investigations into the 1929 position. There is clear emphasis in this circular upon the necessity of carrying out these drainage operations without disturbing agricultural production; hon. Members who are acquainted with the countryside must know that, largely as a result of prosperity, there is a great shortage of labour. We should interrupt the normal proceedings of agriculture by withdrawing labour in this way, and that is why work is restricted in the first place to the winter months, when the agricultural worker is not normally employed or has less work to do. Hon. Members have quite properly drawn attention to the fact that the agricultural worker pays less rent and has countervailing local advantages which the townsman does not get, and they will realise that the agricultural worker on one of these schemes is employed from his own cottage and in his own district. That position does not seem unreasonable. To remove a misapprehension I would add that in industrial areas such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) the usual rates will be paid. I am very glad to have had an opportunity to explain this matter to the Committee.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: In the industrial areas in the West of Yorkshire and also in the rural areas, particular problems will arise. You will have a man in the Hemsworth division doing this work at a certain figure, and he will be moved to the Goole area, where he will be paid 35s. 6d. a week, as an agricultural labourer, working under the same body but paid two distinct rates.

Mr. Holdsworth: No Yorkshireman would do that.

Mr. Griffiths: The board that employs him would insist upon those wages, and if he did not do the work for that wage he would be thrown off unemployment benefit and would have to come upon public assistance, which would come out of the county rate. Sussex pay 33s. 2d. to the farm labourer; under the circular,

of which the Minister knew nothing until 10 minutes ago—he did not know the circular had gone out—the people who are to do the drainage work, whether the work is four feet or six feet deep, and no matter how heavy it is, will receive that 33s. 2d. a week. We ask the Minister to withdraw the circular because it is of no use either to him or to those who are to do the work.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: A serious issue is raised, to which I hope the Minister will give consideration. In the mining areas, in particular, where there is a fairly high percentage of unemployment, miners to whom this work is offered have either to accept it or be not eligible for benefit. We are not putting a hypothetical case; the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has already given one concrete example of how this matter affects the miners. If this matter is allowed to go through in this way, there may be other matters, particularly after the Minister's speech. Workers are classified according to the occupation they follow for a certain period; miners are classified as miners. Up to now, insured contributors have been classified as miners or engineers, etc., until suitable employment could be offered to them at average wages and conditions to which they are entitled, but if the Clause is to be administered as the Minister has explained, it will have a detrimental effect upon such workers. I would ask the Minister for an assurance that the administration of the Clause will not affect the classification of people coming within this part of the Measure. The Minister says that he has examined the matter, but the Agricultural Insurance Act has been passed since then and is now being administered. A very serious position will arise as a result of re-classification and I would ask for an undertaking that insured workers will not be affected in the way mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: A certain degree of apprehension has been aroused because we thought that the Government's proposals were intended to accelerate the work of main drainage. If the work is to be done by farm workers when they have nothing else to do, the dimensions of the scheme will be nothing like as great as they otherwise would have been. We


imagined that the Government were making special efforts to proceed with main drainage work and that they would make special efforts for agricultural workers to undertake this kind of work. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that there is more in this matter than one might gather from the interest which is taken in it, and I ask for an assurance that this more or less specialised work will not be restricted to the agricultural labourer, as is suggesed in the circular. The work is more difficult, and should be paid at a higher rate.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I think we ought to feel more reassured than we do after the reading of this circular, which lays it down as a definite condition that the subsidy shall not be paid unless an admittedly low standard of wages is adhered to by the local authority concerned. That seems to me to be an indefensible position for the Minister to take up in issuing an Order with reference to this Measure, which is not yet an Act of Parliament. It might be arguable that the Minister should in a circular recommend that local authorities should not deplete the already short supplies of agricultural labour by tempting agricultural workers away from their normal work by offering them high wages, but that is not what I understood the circular to do. The circular lays it down that the rate of wages shall be limited, which seems to me to be a very different and improper thing for such a circular to do. I do not think it is any justification of the Ministry's action to say that the Labour party did this or that when they were in office in the past. To us on this bench that is no justification whatever for such action, and in any case the position was different in those days.
What is now being done, as hon. Members above the Gangway have pointed out, is to take away a man's living if he is offered this job and he refuses it, because then he is not entitled to the low benefit under unemployment insurance, and especially under agricultural unemployment insurance. To do such a thing by Order is most drastic and high-handed, and I would express the hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he will modify the wording of the circular. Perhaps in some cases it may be right to

warn local authorities that they must take into account the state of the labour market in the districts where these works are being carried out, but there must be innumerable districts where this work could be undertaken by industrial unemployed men, because there are very few agricultural workers unemployed at the present time, and for the Government to take action of this sort, which will have a depressing effect on wages, seems to me to be unfortunate, to use a very mild term. I wonder whether the Minister could give us an assurance that he will have the words of the circular modified?

8.39 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I am anxious not to waste time over this matter. I take no exception to the manner in which it has been discussed, but I am sure hon. Members will share with me the desire to dispose of it now and proceed with the work of the Committee. I have been asked to take another look at this circular, and I gladly give an assurance on that point. I will examine the position again with a desire to see that fair rates of wages are paid to men employed on these works. I will gladly look at the whole matter again, and I would appeal to hon. Members to let us proceed with the work that we have to do.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the matter right on Report if he finds it necessary?

Mr. Morrison: As I have tried to explain, this is not a matter of direct relevance to the wording of the Bill, but I give the assurance that, if I find anything that ought to be improved with regard to wage conditions, I will get another circular out and put it right.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Watkins: I should like to explain to the Minister that the information which I submitted to the Committee was not in my possession for more than ten minutes before I mentioned it here, so that I had no opportunity of mentioning it to him direct. May I urge upon him the point that, under the terms of the circular, as between men doing this work close to the towns and other men doing exactly the same work in the rural areas, there will be a large differentiation? That is quite unfair, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's reconsideration of the matter will result in his making the rates of pay generally the same wherever the work is


done, though there may be ground for a slight differentiation in some cases.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Will the Minister, in reconsidering this question, take into consideration the question of unemployment benefit?

Mr. Morrison: I shall certainly take that into consideration.

Clauses 15, 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 18.—(Veterinary inspectors.)

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, to leave out "inspectors," and to insert "officers."
I have lately taken the opportunity of canvassing members of the veterinary profession, and they are all of the opinion that it will help the profession very materially, and farmers as well, if this Amendment is accepted. The object of the Bill, as stated by my right hon. Friend, is to raise as far as possible the status of the veterinary profession, and I believe, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend must also believe, that that will undoubtedly happen if this Amendment is accepted. I would point out that from Sub-section (4) of Clause 19 it appears that it is customary in Scotland to refer to the veterinary officer as an officer and not as an inspector, while in Sub-section (2) of Clause 18 itself the draftsmen of the Bill actually use the expression "veterinary officers." Finally, I believe that the farmer objects very strongly to have anything inspected. He likes to see the veterinary surgeon on his premises, and I believe that if the word "officer" is used he will approve of it very much. The word "inspector" does, however, if I may use such an expression, stick in a great many people's noses.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friend is only too anxious to do anything he can to help the veterinary profession, and, indeed, the Bill in itself will do, and is intended to do, a great deal to raise the status of that profession. I am afraid, however, that there are various objections to taking

the course which my hon. Friend desires us to take. In the first place, if we change the word "inspector" to "officer," it will give rise to considerable confusion between the duties of a veterinary officer and those of a lay inspector. Under the Diseases of Animals Acts and the orders made in connection with those Acts there are certain duties for which professional qualifications are necessary, and these are assigned to veterinary inspectors. There are also certain duties assigned to inspectors, who may or may not have professional qualifications as veterinary surgeons. The veterinary inspector may exercise the powers of an inspector, but the powers and duties of the inspector do not necessarily include the professional duties of the veterinary inspector.
If we were to make this alteration, we should have to introduce most complicated Amendments in existing Acts and Orders—the Diseases of Animals Act and so forth—so as to distinguish between occasions when a veterinary officer would be required to discharge the functions of an inspector and occasions when the specified duties of an inspector do not include those of a veterinary officer. A very awkward state of confusion would arise necessitating a large number of Amendments to previous Acts, with consequent complications. It may or may not be that some people do not like the word "inspector," but it is a very well-established word and one which I do not think ought to be deemed to connote anything particularly unpleasant or in any way derogatory. In view of the difficulties involved in making the change, and the very little gain to the veterinary profession that would result from it, I think the Committee would be well advised not to think it worth while. I do not believe the veterinary profession would be a pennyworth better off.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Having regard to what my hon. Friend has said, though not really satisfied, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(2) The Minister shall appoint a chief veterinary officer who shall he responsible directly to him for the organisation of the


centralised veterinary service and for supervising the duties to be discharged by the veterinary officers appointed hereunder.
There are many parts of the Bill which might have induced a person like myself to be violently opposed to it, but this part of it, in my opinion, might be deemed to be well worth while and, in fact, long overdue. When we consider the work done by the Ministry of Health in preserving as far as possible good health conditions, and the enormous expense of maintaining a medical service, it seems nothing short of common sense that the same regard should be had to the food that the public consume. In the Ministry of Health there is a Chief Medical Officer of Health who has direct approach to the Minister and is, in fact, the person responsible for the medical administration of the Department. The purpose of the Amendment is to bring into the Ministry of Agriculture a chief veterinary inspector or officer who shall be responsible to the Minister directly and shall have the same technical control and interest over the members of the staff acting under the Ministry. In considering the necessity of supervising the food conditions of the country, looking after the milk and the condition of the herds, I think the Minister might agree that what we want is the greatest possible enthusiasm of the veterinary profession behind the Bill. After you have initiated a Bill of this kind, for quite a number of months after it has been put into action, there is a very large amount of administrative work to be carried through, and it might be pleaded that your chief veterinary surgeon, if appointed, would be engaged more in administrative work, to get the Act into working operation, than in direct veterinary surgery work.
There are within the veterinary profession men who hold high administrative posts, men who have the double function to perform, in the colonies and elsewhere, and I am not altogether hopeless that there are within the confines of our own country men who have the requisite administrative experience and ability, in conjunction with high-standing qualifications as veterinary surgeons. If there are duties that certain men have to perform, and they have a chief ruling them, they prefer that he should be one who is fully acquainted with the science of the operations that they are carrying through. It is also of the utmost importance, with due

respect and regard to the officers in the Department, that the chief veterinary surgeon should have direct access to the Minister. We must have an enthusiastic, nationally organised veterinary system—it is essential and long overdue—and, in order to capture the enthusiasm of the rank and file of the veterinary profession, it would be well that the chief in the Ministry should be a qualified man and should have direct access to the Minister on broad matters appertaining to direct veterinary policy. This opinion is supported throughout every part of the House. We do not wish to cause any friction in the Department and, if the hon. Gentleman finds that there are certain difficulties in the way, we ask him at least to consider the proposal as one that he will adopt at the very earliest moment.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am aware that the difficulty with which the Minister would be faced in accepting this Amendment is, how could he be sure that the man he chose, if he were a veterinary surgeon, necessarily would have the requisite departmental and administrative knowledge? That, I believe, is the pith of the whole thing. I can point out in this country from memory at least a round dozen of men who could do this job, and do it properly. It is of the utmost importance, if the whole of this Bill is to be successful, that the officer concerned should be a qualified veterinary surgeon, and by way of illustration I will quote the case of someone who was well known to many of us, the late Sir Stewart Stockman. He was brought in from outside, and ran that Department in the most excellent way, and its success has never reached a higher stage than it did under his excellent direction. The best men are wanted, and I believe that unless this Amendment is accepted the profession will not get the best men attracted to it. You cannot divorce technical matters from administrative matters. It is understood that the scheme includes provision for a general routine inspection of dairy cattle, and the organisation of this work, which is even more complicated, and which is already in the hands of veterinary officers. Again, you have only to look, as the hon. Gentleman said, at the Colonies. There you have qualified veterinary officers running the whole of the agricultural departments in many Colonies and States concerned, and I see


no reason why it should not be adopted here. The veterinary profession, which I am sure we all desire to see go from strength to strength, have this at heart, and I will quote a few words from their principal organ, the "Veterinary Record":
If the Minister is to have the power to expend, with the approval of the Treasury, such sums as he thinks fit, with the object of eradicating, as far as practicable, diseases of animals in Great Britain, it is certainly essential that the individual to advise the Minister in the exercise of this important function should be both a veterinary surgeon and the chief of the new State veterinary service. We certainly hope that the Minister will consider the future of his enlightened policy sufficiently thoroughly at this stage to ensure that the new veterinary service shall be properly organised, and organised in such a way that it will receive the unstinted support of the whole of the veterinary profession. Nothing less than the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as chief of the service is likely to receive such support.
That is the view of the profession in this matter, and one which we are entitled to respect. There is an excellent comparison in the Ministry of Health where the Medical Officer of Health, who has access at all times to the Minister, is a qualified medical man, and from what I have said I think it is clear that the same person in the Ministry of Agriculture should be a qualified veterinary surgeon.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: Many of us are looking forward to the establishment of this new service with considerable hope. If it is not actually establishing a new section of the Ministry of Agriculture, it is, at any rate, very greatly developing it. Some of us hope that that will mark a new era in the eradication of animal diseases in this country. If this is to be done effectively, it will be very hard to draw a line between the administrative and technical side in this work, the two are so very closely intertwined. If, as hon. Members have said, the veterinary service is to be raised to a more important status than it has hitherto occupied, I hope that the Minister will agree to the Amendment. We look forward to effective action by this new or enlarged department of the Ministry of Agriculture, and if it is to be done imaginatively, and with due regard for the technical and scientific side of the work, the administrative as well as the technical side should be in the hands of qualified veterinary officers.
I believe that that is the case not only in certain British Colonies, but also in the United States of America, where they have had perhaps a greater experience of voluntary work than we have in this country, and where their record in eradicating tuberculosis is far in advance of ours. In fact, some of the provisions to which we shall come later in this Bill are very reminiscent of what was done several years ago in parts of the United States. Their example, therefore, in this work is not altogether a bad one of which to take note, and I believe that it is also the case in France that the chief of the department is a qualified veterinary surgeon. I hope that the Minister will give the Amendment his very careful consideration and will accept it if he possibly can.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I do not think that there is any need to apologise for asking the Committee to consider this matter very carefully, because there is no doubt that the acceptance of the Amendment would go a very long way towards ensuring the appropriate working of this part of the Act. I would like to add to what the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. Grant-Ferris) said in the way of analogy, that at the Board of Education the Chief School Medical Officer for the country is in direct touch with the President of the Board of Education. One has to bear in mind that there are a very considerable number of veterinary officers who during the past few years have gained a very considerable knowledge of the administrative side of the work as the heads of the veterinary departments of the various great county councils. If there is no one in the Ministry itself who is capable of carrying out this work, I know that there are a number of men serving the great county councils who would be able to take this post and bring to it not merely great technical knowledge and veterinary skill, but also very considerable experience of administrative work, and who have got to know the way in which county councils work, and they sometimes work, especially in agricultural matters, in a very mysterious way. They also know the way in which farmers respond to administrative stimulus from a central headquarters, and that is even more mysterious than the way county councils work on occasion.
I hope the Minister will feel that this is a matter on which he can accept the Amendment. Having regard to the names that appear at the head of it, which show that it is supported throughout the Committee, but for the fact that one never knows what the Government do, one might have anticipated that my hon. Friend would have been interrupted by the Minister saying that the case for the Amendment was so self-evident that he need not trouble him to say anything in its favour, and the Committee need not waste any time in discussing it. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see his way to accept the Amendment.

9.6 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: In supporting the Amendment, which I do most heartily, I should like to say that those of us who support it make no charge whatever against the Civil Service. We have a very great respect for the Civil Service, but this is a most important post, it has been so in the past and it must remain so in the future, and it ought to be occupied by a fully qualified veterinary surgeon. True, a great deal of administrative work will have to be done, and it is possible that in the Civil Service there may be someone who is amply qualified to perform the administrative duties, but administration very largely depends upon the knowledge with which the administration is done, and undoubtedly this is a question where the scientific element will mean very much. We believe that if the administration were carried out by someone who, in addition to administrative qualifications has sound scientific veterinary training, it would be very much more likely to be successful than if the administration were carried out from the administrative point of view only.
The Minister may say that at the moment he might have difficulty in finding a man in the Civil Service who would be fully qualified from the standpoint I have mentioned, but I cannot believe that the man does not exist either inside or outside the Civil Service, neither do I believe that the Civil Service would object to a man with special qualifications being brought in. Therefore, that argument would not hold good if it were made by the Minister. The point with regard to having direct responsibility and access to the Minister is one to which full consideration

ought to be given, for the reason that if we had a man of high qualifications as a veterinary surgeon appointed to the post and he did not have direct access to the Minister, he might have the feeling that any point of policy that he had put forward for consideration had not been properly and fully put before the Minister. That might be only a supposition on his part, but it might be genuinely held. To get a full and satisfactory working we ought to have not only the good will but the full confidence of the veterinary profession, and that would be obtained much more certainly if the chief veterinary officer had direct access to the Minister. The analogy of the Ministry of Health has been quoted, where it has been proved in practice that the man who performs this type of professional work, not in the case of animals, but in the case of human beings, must be a scientifically trained man and must have direct access to the Minister. If it is necessary in the one case, it is in the other.

9.10 p.m.

Sir William Wayland: The difficulty that I see is in dividing the duties of the head of the veterinary profession in connection with this Bill. We have men at the Ministry at the present time who are acting as special advisers and who are qualified veterinary surgeons. What would be the relationship between this special head veterinary officer and the members of the Ministry's staff? There comes the difficulty. Is the Ministry going to sack its present advisers or to put one of them into the position of chief veterinary officer? It ought to be laid down clearly what special duties this officer would be supposed to have. Hon. Members say that his duties would be administrative as well as technical. There would be bound to be overlapping in that case.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) expressed the opinion that I was probably fully seized of this question. If I am not fully seized, it is a pleasure to be further seized of it by listening to the hon. Member's observations. I would point out to him that the Amendment for which he is responsible raises important issues, one of which is a fairly important constitutional


issue, namely, whether it is appropriate for this House to give instructions by Statute to a Minister in regard to the administrative arrangements which he makes in his Department for carrying out the duties for which he is responsible. As the hon. Member probably knows, the authority of my right hon. Friend is derived from Section 5 of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889. By that Act he is empowered to appoint a secretary and such officers and servants as the Board—it was the Board then, and it is the Ministry now—may with the sanction of the Treasury determine. Therefore, by Parliament he is entrusted with the duty of appointing a secretary and the various officials that he requires to advise him and assist him in carrying out the administration for which he is responsible.
I suggest to the hon. Member and the Committee that if the Amendment were accepted a very new, and I think a rather dangerous and objectionable, principle would be imported into our constitutional practice, because if Parliament gives a Minister instructions not only as to the staff which he appoints but also the duties, qualifications, etc., of that staff, the doctrine hitherto acted upon in our conception of ministerial responsibility might be gravely undermined. It is the Minister who is responsible for the acts of his Department, and no other excuse is accepted from him by this House if anything goes wrong. He is the man who has to answer on the Vote for his Department, or on the Adjournment for mistakes of administration. Is it to come to this that the House of Commons, while giving him power to appoint a secretary and staff, shall take it out of his power to appoint the kind of staff that he wants, to lay down the duties and qualifications of that staff and demand the appointment of this or that person with this and that experience? In such a case—I hope it will never occur—the Minister might say, if things go wrong in his Department—although he might not say it to the House of Commons—he might justifiably think it: "If I had had a free hand, as I used to have before this enactment, the mistake would never have been made; but I was handicapped because Parliament fettered me in the discretion hitherto allowed to appoint my own servants, my own officers and advisers." Therefore, on these broad grounds the acceptance

of this Amendment would introduce into our constitution a precedent which, I suggest, would be entirely undesirable.
The Amendment would also require the Minister to appoint a chief veterinary officer to be responsible directly to him for the organisation of these centralised veterinary services, and to supervise the duties to be discharged by veterinary officers to be appointed under the Bill. I shall be able to show that this is quite unnecessary. There is, and has been for years, a chief veterinary officer on the staff of the Ministry, and there is no intention of abolishing that post. Indeed, the extension of the work which is involved by the Bill makes it all the more necessary to retain this post. Therefore, the injunction to appoint a chief veterinary officer is quite unnecessary, because there has been such an official for years, and at the moment he is responsible for the control of the professional veterinary staff engaged on work in connection with diseases of animals, and is responsible for advising the Minister on all technical matters connected with diseases of animals. It is most desirable in problems which involve not only the control of new centralised services but the administration of arrangements for eradicating animal diseases, and which also involve questions of administration, that there should be close liaison between the technical and administrative staffs in the Department; and I am able to tell the Committee that arrangements have been made under which the work of administration will be the responsibility of a senior administrative officer, and it has been made quite clear that the chief veterinary officer will be responsible for the control of the professional staff and will advise the Minister on all questions connected with diseases of animals.
The Minister will utilise most fully the services of these administrative and technical officers, and I have every reason to suppose that they will work together as a team. It is essential that the veterinary staff should be under the control of the chief veterinary officer and that his advice will be sought before questions of policy are determined. When the hon. Member asks whether he will have access to the Minister, he knows that in a Government Department the whole office works as a team. If it does not do so, the Department is badly run. The head of the


Department is the Permanent Secretary, and there is no doubt that where the chief veterinary officer is specially qualified to advise the Minister, his advice will be sought before any decision on policy is reached. The hon. Member thinks that unless some provision is made saying that access to the Minister shall be secured, the Minister will be deprived of the advice of his chief veterinary officer. When technical questions come up on which the Minister requires to be advised, the chief veterinary officer is there to advise him. Questions of policy would go through the head of the team, that is, the Permanent Secretary. The Minister is able to get all the advice he requires. If a Minister is to be told what sort of man he shall have and what his qualifications must be, I suggest that, for the first time as far as I know, the House of Commons will be laying down a provision fettering a Minister in choice of his staff, and a time may come when Ministerial responsibility will be impossible to maintain. Therefore, on the constitutional basis, and because in practice the chief veterinary officer will be able to advise the Minister, who will have every opportunity of asking for his advice, I hope the Committee will allow the present practice to remain, realising that with the new duties which the Bill will entail the Minister will see that his veterinary advice is just as good as it can be.

Sir J. Lamb: Will there be any variation from the procedure adopted in the Ministry of Health in the case of the Minister and the Chief Medical Officer? Will the same relationship obtain in the case of the chief veterinary officer as now obtains in the Ministry of Health in the case of the Chief Medical Officer of Health?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I do not know that I can make any analogy with the work of another Department without being familiar with its work. I cannot say what arrangements exist between the Minister of Health and the Chief Medical Officer, and I cannot say whether they are on all fours with those of the Minister of Agriculture and the chief veterinary officer.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I should be much more convinced by the circular argument the Minister of Pensions has just made but for his opening remarks in which he advanced

the constitutional defence. The main basis of the constitutional argument was that the Minister is responsible to Parliament, and therefore that this House, the representatives of the people, should not prescribe in an Act of Parliament exactly the kind of officer the Minister should have. He says that there is no precedent for such qualifications to be laid down in an Act of Parliament. That is not true. There are cases in which the House has decided that people of certain qualifications shall be within the nomination of the Minister. I remember fighting a case many years ago with regard to the provision of auditors. The prescription in the Prayer was that nobody could be approved by the Treasury as a public auditor unless he belonged to two specified professional bodies; all others who had the necessary qualifications were excluded.

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is not an analogy.

Mr. Alexander: It is no good the Minister saying that it is not an analogy. The whole point is that the regulation prescribed whom the Minister might appoint, and the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was at the Treasury at that time and knows the circumstances. No one wishes to interfere with the position as outlined in the latter part of the Minister's speech in which he pointed out that you have a Chief Veterinary Officer, and that he must be responsible to the Minister and to the Permanent Secretary of the Department for proper, effective professional work with regard to the diseases of animals. I cannot see why he cannot explain to my hon. Friend what part of the Amendment he could accept, and what part he could not accept with a view to putting the matter right on the Report stage. I should be sorry if my hon. Friends or I were going to accept the view that the Minister was always to refuse to have professional qualifications put into an Act of Parliament. I hope that the Minister can assure the House, first, that the veterinary side of the service will be properly supervised by properly qualified men—I gather that he can—and, second, that for the expanded and important work to be undertaken under this section of the Bill, the Ministry will appoint properly qualified veterinary officers. That is the main objective which members of the profession have in mind, and I hope that the Minister will give us those two assurances.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have pleasure in responding to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. It is, of course, the intention that the Chief Veterinary Officer in charge will be the person who can advise me as to matters which bring in the professional status of his officers, and he can deal with them as a distinguished member of the same profession as his officers. In the second place, I have no diffidence in giving the assurance that for all properly veterinary appointments only men who are properly qualified will be employed.

Viscountess Astor: And women?

Mr. Morrison: And women if they are employed.

Viscountess Astor: They are.

Mr. Morrison: I hope that the Committee will see that the position of the veterinary officers is absolutely safeguarded. Indeed, the intention of this part of the Bill is to increase the status and importance of veterinary officers. But there are two sides to the work, and the Permanent Secretary will be responsible for the administrative side of the work, contacts with local authorities and administrative duties of the most intricate and important character. The position of the veterinary profession will be enhanced by these proposals, and the administrative arrangements will safeguard the position to the full.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I, also, was a little astonished at the prelude of the speech of the Minister of Pensions, which was by way of a long discourse on the constitutional position. He was trying to erect a fortress which seemed to collapse in his hands. Not infrequently Members move Amendments not wishing to enforce them word for word, but hoping for consideration for the spirit embodied in them, and I would wish the Minister to accede to this request and embody the object in his Bill. Far be it from me to tell the Minister what to do. I have too high a regard for him. I would have done it to the fellow before him and many others. I can assure the Minister that there was no presumption here to initiate some new constitutional practice and to bind the Minister and dictate what he should do. We consider that this is an opportunity whereby we can have the veterinary practice

in this country put on all fours with medical practice as it is under the Ministry of Health. We say that we are with the Minister, and that it is long overdue that the health of the milk, cattle, and farming industry of this country should be regarded as being as important as the health of the people of this country. They seem to hang together, and it is for that reason that we want as Chief Veterinary Officer a man with the same status as the Medical Officer of Health at the Ministry of Health. The reply was that there was an officer there who would be deemed to be the principal Veterinary Officer, but subject to the control of a Secretary. He has not the same status as the Chief Medical Officer at the Ministry of Health.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is a matter of administration. The chief veterinary officer will be the only person who will advise the Minister on veterinary matters, but it is necessary in any Department to have a team, especially when you have matters of administration.

Mr. MacLaren: But will that officer have direct access to the Minister and not have to go through some intermediary, another permanent official? Will he stand in the same relation to the Minister as the Chief Medical Officer to the Minister of Health?

Mr. Morrison: I am not quite certain what the arrangement is at the Ministry of Health, and I should not like to answer what I do know with reference to what I do not know. The position will be that if the Chief Veterinary Officer wishes at any time to approach the Minister on a veterinary matter, he will be entitled to do so.

Mr. McGhee: Is he subject to the control of another permanent official?

Mr. Morrison: To this extent, that every Department must have a permanent head, and at the Ministry of Agriculture we have so many other things besides veterinary work that we have to have a Permanent Secretary, and I anticipate that for the proper running of the Department it would be necessary in administrative matters for the Permanent Secretary to run the Department as a whole. In veterinary matters the Chief Veterinary Officer is the head, and he alone can tender advice on veterinary matters.

Mr. MacLaren: I do not know what the feeling of the Committee is about this. I, personally, would press it to a Division, but I do not wish to create a disposition in the Ministry or elsewhere that would prejudice the objective we have in view. If the Minister gives the most ample opportunities to the chief veterinary surgeon and should he find out that it is necessary to raise the status of that officer, will he consider it, or at least keep it in his mind? From the disposition of the Committee, I feel that I could not hope to gain very much by pressing the Amendment to a Division; but I and other hon. Members, in all parts of the Committee, feel very strongly that it is essential that the health of agriculture should be as important to the Ministry of Agriculture as the health of the population is to the Ministry of Health, and that the chief veterinary officer at the Ministry of Agriculture should have the same status, easy access and control of responsibility as the chief medical officer at the Ministry of Health. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to move, in page 12, line 11, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:
(2) There shall be transferred and attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries such veterinary inspectors or veterinary officers on the staff of—

(a) any other Government Department as are engaged in connection with the execution of such Acts, enactments, or arrangements as aforesaid; and
(b) any local authority as are wholly or mainly so engaged."

Hon. Members will observe that the wording of the Amendment is the same as the provision in the Bill, with the exception that there are added the words:
any local authority as are wholly or mainly so engaged.
Under this Clause, the functions of veterinary inspectors under the Diseases of Animals Act will hereafter be discharged by veterinary inspectors appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture. That means that the Ministry will take over a good many of the duties hitherto performed by veterinary inspectors in the service of local authorities, but as far as I can see there is in the Bill no obligation on the Ministry to take over the existing veterinary inspectors employed by such

local authorities. Large local authorities, such as county councils, have in their service men of the very highest attainments in this respect, and naturally they are concerned as to what is to be the position of those persons when the Bill comes into operation. I am moving the Amendment in the hope that these people will be taken over by the Ministry and that they will receive compensation should they suffer any pecuniary loss of a result of such transfer. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I hope the Minister will give very favourable consideration to the Amendment. At the moment we are completely in the dark as to what policy the Minister intends to pursue in the administration of this part of the Bill when it becomes an Act. There are throughout the country veterinary officers who have served the county authorities well, and we wish to know whether they will be treated properly under this part of the Agriculture Bill. It is remarkable that there does not appear in the Bill any provision regarding those who are not taken over, and that makes it more important that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) should be accepted and that all of them should be taken over. Every Measure dealing with similar matters that I have seen passed through the House—as examples, I may mention the Livestock Industry Bill, the Road Traffic Act, and the Land Drainage Act—has had a provision regarding compensation to displaced officers; but I find no such provision in this Bill. I hope that that means that the Minister intends that all these officers should be taken. I hope it means that the whole of the departments in the county authorities will be taken over, for it is well known that in addition to veterinary officers, there are assistant officers and clerks in the departments. It would be wrong, at a time when we are trying to improve the standing of the veterinary service in the country, that we should do an injustice to any of these men. I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I would like to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It is not only


a question of the veterinary inspectors of the different counties being taken over, but also of those who in many cases work under the direction of those inspectors. My information is that there are a good many county authorities which not only have an inspector, but a clerical staff to assist him. We are given no indication in the Bill as to what is to happen to such a staff.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member is going outside the scope of the Amendment.

Mr. Foot: In that case I will endeavour to raise that point at a later stage. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, not only are we not told how many officers are to be taken over, but there is no provision in the Bill for compensation in any shape or form to the officers who are not taken over, and whose duties are diminished by reason of the change that is contemplated in the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that is also outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Foot: Is it not in order on this Bill to point out that certain provisions are omitted?

The Deputy-Chairman: Not on this Amendment in any case.

9.42 p.m.

Major Hills: I hope the Minister will consider this Amendment favourably. It seems to me to fill a gap. At the present time the county council of the West Riding possesses a veterinary service of use and distinction, but if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, there will be nothing for that service to do. There is no provision in the Bill for taking those men over, there is no provision for compensating them, and as far as I can see, there will be nothing left for them to do. The veterinary inspectors and officers of the Ministry will have charge of the Diseases of Animals Act, of enactments relating to milk or to dairies, and the functions of veterinary inspectors in England and veterinary officers in Scotland with regard to duties under the Milk Act. All the work that the veterinary officers of the local authorities can do is now to be transferred. What is to become of those officers? I hope they will be taken over, and I believe that would be the best

course to follow, but if they are not to be taken over, I suggest that some provision ought to be made for them.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what is behind his mind, because on looking over the Report of the Committee on Cattle Diseases, 1934, I find that in most cases the counties have many part-time officers, but very few full-time officers. For instance, Essex has only one full-time officer, but 19 part-time officers; Derbyshire has two full-time officers and 19 part-time officers; and Kent has one full-time officer and 20 part-time officers. The same applies in the case of many other counties. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, assuming that the part-time officers have the appropriate qualifications, they also will be taken over. If not, has the Minister anything in his mind in regard to the present part-time officers whose part-time occupation will be lost as a result of setting up the new United Kingdom service?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: Obviously it will be necessary for the Government to utilise as fully as possible the existing veterinary surgeons. My right hon. Friend has expressed that view on several occasions. As regards the first part of the Amendment, the Government have already announced that they intend to invite all whole-time veterinary officers of local authorities to accept appointments under the Ministry, subject to the conditions which will ordinarily attach to the State veterinary service. In other words, these gentlemen will be invited to become civil servants. That is borne out by Clause 25, Sub-section (2), dealing with their superannuation rights. It is explicit and implicit in the Bill. The second part of the Amendment asks the Government also to enlist in the civil service the various part-time officers who from time to time, as occasion arises, are employed by local authorities in the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act, the Milk and Dairies Orders and so forth, or in routine inspections.
There again it is the intention of the Government, as far as possible, to utilise the services of those persons who are employed from time to time as part-time officers, but it is not the Government's intention to make those part-time officers Civil servants on the same footing as the


whole-time officers. Therefore, as regards the first part of the Amendment it is the Government's declared intention to invite all whole-time officers to accept appointment under the Ministry, while, as regards the second part, it is the Government's intention to utilise the service of the part-time officers, as far as possible, but they cannot concede to those officers the status of Civil servants in the same sense as it is being conceded to the whole-time officers.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: Then I gather from the hon. Gentleman explicitly that the Government are prepared to take over the full-time officers? Another point arises, however, in regard to the part-time officers. Under the new arrangement their position may be worsened and I think there should be some means of compensating them.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the Committee that we are dealing with a Bill which is founded on a Resolution and in the terms of the Resolution there is no provision whatever for compensation. If it was desired to raise this point it ought to have been raised on the Resolution. The matter could not be dealt with under this Bill in any circumstances.

Mr. Foot: On a point of Order. While obviously it would not be in order to suggest that any burden should be placed on the National Exchequer, would it not be in order to suggest that it should be placed on the local authorities?

The Deputy-Chairman: This is a Bill founded on a Resolution and we are bound by the terms of the Resolution.

Mr. Foot: Would it not be in order to advance as a reason for rejecting the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" that no provision had been made in it for the compensation of officers who will be displaced as a result of it?

The Deputy-Chairman: I think not. The Bill is founded on a Resolution and the point ought to have been raised on the Resolution. I could not accept as an argument in favour of rejecting the Clause that it did not do something which could not possibly be done now in the Bill.

Mr. Ammon: This is another example of the position with which we are continually

being faced, of Financial Resolutions being drawn in such a way that we are unable to raise these matters. We shall have to adopt ways and means of ascertaining what can be done in regard to that position so as to prevent hon. Members being deprived of opportunities to discuss certain matters even before a Bill has actually come before us. This is yet another instance of a Department taking away authority from the House of Commons. All I can do within your perfectly correct Ruling, Captain Bourne, is to ask that the persons concerned shall be dealt with as generously as possible within the ambit of the Bill.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to say in self-defence that this Resolution was drafted as widely as possible in order that ample scope for debate should be given, and though I do not necessarily take the views of newspapers, I think it was pointed out in the Press that it was very widely drawn. On the main point I can say that the position of part-time veterinary officers will be improved under the Bill. It all depends on the class of work which a local authority has to do whether it appoints a whole-time or a part-time officer. Sometimes there is not enough work for a whole-time man and then the local authority utilises the part-time services of a veterinary surgeon who is also engaged in private practice. I think that under the new arrangement they are bound to be more extensively employed. Where a full-time officer is now operating under the orders of a local authority he will continue to operate under the Ministry. Where local authorities find it convenient to employ a part-time officer so, it is to be expected, will the Ministry. The only difference will be that they will get their fees from the Ministry instead of the local authority.
There is another side to it, however. With this campaign for the eradication of disease I can imagine that greater interest will be taken in the subject by the farming community. When the centralised veterinary surgeon comes round to inspect a man's cowsheds he may see an animal which he suspects of having tuberculosis or some other disease. I can imagine him advising the farmer to call in the services of a practising veterinary surgeon near at hand in order to make sure that the disease can be caught at an early stage


and the animal cured. It seems to me that where these men have been employed in the past, we shall find it necessary to employ them in the future, and as we shall be doing more work in this respect than has ever been done before, the probability is that their services will be utilised to a greater extent than ever before.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the needs of the locality. If all these part-time officers were to be taken over, it would rob the farmers in many country districts of the essential services of veterinary surgeons. By refusing to make them civil servants you continue to make their services available to the farmer. I would like the farmer's point of view to be considered.

Amendment negatived.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 12, line 17, to leave out Subsection (3).
I move this Amendment because I wish to ask certain questions and I am horrified to find the number of questions which are involved. The Amendment raises a matter on which the Minister has given us no detailed information whatever, namely, what functions of the present administrative system are to be taken over by the new State service and what functions are not to be taken over. There is a considerable body of legislation which, as far as I can see, is going to remain for the county councils or the sanitary authorities to continue to administer, and I would like to ask which particular parts of this legislation are to be transferred to the new State service.
There are two aspects of this matter. One is the aspect of what actual relief the counties which have been administering these Acts are going to have from the cost of that administration, what saving there is going to be to the counties or sanitary authorities concerned; and the other aspect of the question is, What is the farmer's position going to be under the new form of administration? There appear to be three approaches to this question of a clean and healthy milk supply. There is the question of the buildings in which the supply is produced, and

that is largely the responsibility of the local sanitary authorities, the urban and district councils and the others. Is that going to remain so? Then there is the question—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have heard the hon. Member's questions, I have read the Sub-section, and I cannot see any of them arising out of it.

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry, but they arise in this sense, that the Sub-section empowers the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to place the services of the new State Department at the command of the local authorities, and I ask for what purposes that will be done, for what purposes the State services themselves will act, and for what purposes they will be left, and charged, to the local authorities. I submit that that is a proper question to ask on this subject.

The Deputy-Chairman: It occurs to me that the main object of the Sub-section is to enable a fee to be charged if they are left.

Mr. Roberts: What I therefore ask is what they are going to do and whether they are going to be left? The functions that are to be transferred are those under the Diseases of Animals Acts and, as far as I understand it, only Section 9 of the Milk Act of 1934. That leaves an enormous number of Acts and Orders to be administered by the local authorities, such as the Milk and Dairies Order, 1926, which affects all milk producers and under which sanitary authorities and the county councils have certain duties of inspection. Are these to be transferred? Then there is the Milk (Special Designations) Order, 1936, under which you have two grades of milk, accredited milk and tuberculin-tested milk. The latter was at one time under the Ministry of Health and is now under the county councils. That is a question of testing cattle. Is that to be transferred? At present it is done by an approved private practitioner. Then there are other Acts of Parliament and Orders, such as the Milk and Dairies Order (Consolidation) Act, 1915, and the Tuberculosis Order, 1925, both dealing with various aspects and grades of milk, of which there are at least three, if not more, at the present time. Without going further into it, I would like to ask whether the Minister can give me some kind of statement as to which of these many functions


are to be transferred and which are to be left to the local authorities and charged to them.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: There is a small point which rather hangs on the point made by the last speaker. At present what happens is that when you have an inspector looking at animals supposed to be suffering from tuberculosis, he gives advice to the farmer as to his byres, and so on. Does this Sub-section mean that in the future he will not be able to give that advice, that he will not be able to tell the man that his byres are not up to the standard and to tell him what to do to put them right, without having a prior arrangement with the local authorities as to fees? This matter has been rather worrying certain local authorities in the North, since they have read this Bill, and I believe that they have written to the Minister on the subject. If the right hon. Gentleman could give an assurance that this rather helpful practice between the two authorities will be able to continue, I think that will be useful.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Foot: With regard to the Public Health (Meat) Regulations, in my constituency the services of the sanitary inspector have been used in connection with the administration of these regulations. That is not a function which is specifically mentioned as one that is to be taken over, but I observe that the wording of Sub-section (3) is not confined to enactments and regulations concerning milk, but that the words used are, "in relation to public health." We have in the past used the services of the veterinary inspector in connection with these regulations. It is true that most of the work has been done by the superintendent of slaughter-houses, but when there has been some question of difficulty arising, a veterinary inspector has been called in. That has been our experience in Dundee, but I do not know whether it is the general experience. Will it still be possible to call in the veterinary inspector provided by the State as we have been able in the past to call in the veterinary inspector provided by the local authority?

10.3 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. Roberts) has, I see, another Amendment on the

Paper to leave out Sub-section (4). May I take it that he wishes both points to be answered together, because I think they are really the same. The hon. Member's objection to the Sub-sections is this, that at present the local authorities pay salaries or fees to their own veterinary inspectors for the work which they do, but when these officers are transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, it will often be convenient that the Ministry should lend veterinary officers to the local authorities for certain purposes, and instead of having to pay for full-time service they will then only be charged for those particular functions and veterinary services which relate specifically to public health. The hon. Gentleman asked me to say exactly which services are going to be transferred and which are not. Those which are going to be transferred are the duties under the Tuberculosis Order, 1925, the routine veterinary inspection under the milk and dairies legislation, the tuberculin tests under the Milk (Special Designations) Order, and the diagnostic inquiries under Schedule D.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) asked whether, if it were convenient, inspection of dairies could still be carried on by co-operation between local authorities and the Ministry. There is no reason why that should not be so. These are services which are being transferred. The hon. Gentleman also wished to know which services would not be transferred. There is a long list of them, such as duties relating to the administration of the Diseases of Animals Act, receiving information from owners of diseased stock, service and enforcement of notices of destruction, isolation and dipping, and a number of others. Nearly all of them are functions which are carried out mainly by the police. Very few of them affect the Sub-section which concerns the work of veterinary officers. The principal one which does concern them is that which has just been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). If, for example, meat is rejected and the owner of the meat or the butcher objects to the rejection, the local authority may call in the veterinary surgeon and ask for his report. That function will continue to be performed by veterinary surgeons. Since that is a matter which concerns public health, a fee would be charged to the local authority


for the services of the veterinary surgeon. It will not be charged if the veterinary surgeon has to go to inspect, for example, a herd, in which the local authority's medical officer had discovered the existence of tuberculosis from looking at the milk. Although it had been discovered by the medical officer, it would not be primarily a matter of public health, but a matter of the eradication of animal disease, and in that case a fee would not be charged.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman said that the tracing of tuberculosis germs in milk would be a service that would not be charged to the local authority. Will the sampling of milk still be carried out by the sanitary inspectors of the local authorities?

Mr. Wedderburn: That would not concern the veterinary surgeons. If, after the milk had been sampled by the medical service, it was suspected of containing tuberculosis germs and the animals were found to be infected, it would be a matter for the veterinary surgeon

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: A small point in the minds of a number of local authorities in Scotland is raised by this Sub-section. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary mentioned that there were to be left in the hands of local authorities a good many services most of which would be administered in practice by the police. It has been urged upon me by Fife County Council that there might arise a case where the Minister desired a certain piece of work to be done which would be done in practice by the chief constable. The Fife County Council are concerned lest the chief constable of the county should be expected to take orders direct from the Minister of Agriculture. I cannot imagine that that is what is desired, but there is a genuine doubt about it in the minds of the County Councils Association in Scotland, and it would be well if my hon. Friend could relieve some of their fears.

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that that arises on this Amendment, which is simply concerned with the functions of

the veterinary officers. I mentioned the police only because most of the functions about which the hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked concerned the local authorities and did not concern the veterinary officers at all. The position with regard to the police will be very much the same now as under the Diseases of Animals Act. In the case, for instance, of an order concerning foot-and-mouth disease, the local authority will have to see that it is carried out, and the police are used to carrying it out, and they are the police of the local authority. It is the Minister of Agriculture who makes the order, for he is responsible for eradicating disease.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In that case is not the instruction to the county council made through the county clerk?

The Deputy-Chairman: I really do not think that this point can arise on this Amendment.

10.11 p.m.

Sir F. Acland: I have been enlightened by this discussion and I would like to ask the Minister whether, when this Bill gets a little further, it will be possible to send some account of how the new administration will actually work to the county councils or other authorities in a way which the ordinary member of an ordinary committee of a county council engaged in this work will be able to understand. It is a little difficult to deal with it merely by reference to Acts in the Schedule, and we shall find it much easier to carry out in a friendly way locally if we can have some memorandum describing how the thing will actually work.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I shall certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman said. This part of the Act, however, was drafted after a good deal of consultation with those who are experienced in this aspect of local government, but anything that can be done to render these provisions more readily understandable will be done.

Mr. W. Roberts: In view of what the Minister says, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Foot: Under this Clause the functions that are now discharged by veterinary inspectors appointed by local authorities are in future to be discharged by veterinary inspectors appointed by the Minister. The Minister is defined in the definition Clause as the Minister of Agriculture. One assumes from that that the veterinary inspectors for the whole country are to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, who is the head of a purely English Department. I want to ask what the position will be in Scotland—

The Deputy-Chairman: There is a new Clause in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), which will enable the whole position of Scotland to be raised. It would be much better raised on the new Clause. If it is discussed piecemeal on this Clause, I may find myself unable to select the new Clause.

Mr. Foot: In that case I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne, and will raise the matter then.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: There is one matter about which I have a question to ask. On the Financial Resolution, on 29th June, the Minister explained that under the new scheme no consideration would be taken of county boundaries. The words he used were:
The sole criterion of an area which is the subject of an order is whether it has disease in it or not, and no account is taken of county or other borders."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1937; col. 1825, Vol. 325.]
There is one disease which does affect large parts of the North of England, and that is sheep scab. I wish to know whether that statement by the Minister and the passing into law of this Clause will mean that in future no consideration is to be given to county boundaries as regards the movement of sheep. At present there are regulations which are administered by counties. There are groups—Scotland and Northumberland form one group, which has regulations against the remainder of the North of England; and there are counties in the South of England which have individual county regulations. My question is, shortly, whether in future that will not be the procedure, or whether in fact the actual districts in which this disease exists

will be covered by regulations, just as is done with outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, in which no county boundaries are considered.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: All I meant to say on the Financial Resolution was that when you are dealing with any diseases of animals you have to restrict the movements of animals within an area, or to impose regulations to require double dipping in the case of sheep scab, and that with a unified service it ought to be possible so to delimit the areas as to cause the minimum of inconvenience to ordinary commerce in agriculture. I had in mind particularly some of these county restrictions. We hope in future to delimit the areas not with a view to local considerations but to the existence of the disease.

CLAUSE 19.—(Special payments in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis.)

10.17 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: The Amendment I desire to move, is in page 12, line 43, at the end, to insert:
and in the case of an owner of a herd from which milk is not sold wholesale, such payments may take the form of a payment per head of cattle in the possession of the owner.
At the present time the reward of a farmer for freeing his herd of cattle from tuberculosis is the payment through the Milk Board, out of moneys provided by Parliament—not by the Milk Board itself—of a bonus of 1d. per gallon on the milk. The object of this Amendment is to give the Minister the power to pay that reward to the farmer not only on the gallonage of milk sold but according to the number of cattle he happens to have on the farm. There are no details in my Amendment, but no doubt they could be drawn up by the Minister if he were to accept the principle. At one time there were considerable districts in the West of England, the North-West of England, and in Scotland and in Wales, where cattle were kept not so much for milk as, partly, to make butter from their milk, but mainly for the sake of rearing store cattle, which were afterwards sold as stores. In addition, there was a sale of dairy heifers and dairy cows, which went into the Midlands to supply the men who produce milk


without themselves breeding all the cattle they need. If we could encourage farmers to get their herds free from tuberculosis we should be tackling one source of the disease at the very roots. There are high limestone districts throughout the North of England and in Scotland to which I could take the Minister, where, because of the lime or of some other constituent in the soil, the herds are already—

The Deputy-Chairman: The argument of the hon. Member appears to relate to herds, but I would point out that the Resolution is limited to milk, and I am afraid that his argument is therefore outside the scope of the Resolution.

Mr. Roberts: The Clause which we are discussing is to replace a Section of the Milk Act, 1934, and while the wording of the next Clause we shall come to is exactly similar to the Section in the Act of 1934, the Sub-section has been very deliberately changed. Whereas in the Milk Act, 1934, the words are:
With the object of securing so far as practicable that the milk supplied for human consumption in England or in Scotland, as the case may be, is pure and free from the infection of any diseases.
the words in the present Bill aim at securing that not the milk but the herd is free. That is a very substantial and important change, and I humbly suggest that I am not providing for an additional charge by my Amendment, but only making clear the intention of the Minister, which is to free the herds from tuberculosis and therefore be able to reward the farmer; not merely to free the milk.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at paragraph 8 of the Financial Resolution, which is what governs us, he will notice that payment is to be made in respect of milk produced. I am afraid that his argument is, therefore, outside the scope of the Resolution. I understand that his Amendment is directed to quite another object.

Mr. Price: Is it not the case that the Amendment will not impose a charge upon the Government funds but upon the funds of the Milk Marketing Board, and is therefore a matter which we are entitled to consider?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that is not the case. We are governed by the Financial Resolution, and whether the charge is upon Government funds or the funds of something else, is a point which is immaterial. The point is whether the charge is covered by the Resolution.

Mr. Turton: Does not paragraph 8 of the Financial Resolution first empower the Government to pay the owner of any herd of cattle—and that includes milk or any other—for the purpose of securing as far as practicable that the herd will be free from tuberculosis, sums of money out of the Cattle Fund? It does not lay down how that money shall be paid. Is there not a further consideration in the second half of that paragraph that the Board administering milk marketing schemes shall make payments in respect of milk produced? Are not those two powers quite distinct?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is quite correct, but the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) was not arguing this Amendment on the ground that there is to be a payment for milk. If his Amendment is that the Minister can make payments on other grounds his Amendment is either unnecessary or out of order.

Mr. Roberts: Perhaps it might help if you could elucidate the meaning of the doubtful phrase in Sub-section (1) of Clause 19, which empowers the Minister to pay the owner of any herd of cattle such sums as the Minister thinks fit, on the understanding that the herds will be free from tuberculosis.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman had better raise that point on the question as to the Clause standing part. He is quite entitled to do that.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Roberts: The point that I would ask the Minister to explain is what exactly he means by the words "will be free."

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I think I shall be able to reassure the hon. Member on that point. The Clause is specially drawn so as to confer on the Minister full discretion with regard to the payments which he can make to the owner of any herds of cattle


for the purpose that we have in mind. Paragraph (31) of the Memorandum on the Financial Resolution states that:
It is proposed that payments to owners of milk-producing herds under schemes for the official attestation of herds certified to be free from tuberculosis should be continued until 1st February, 1941, and that such schemes should be extended to enable corresponding payments to be made in respect of herds maintained primarily for beef production.
I think that that covers the point which the hon. Member has in mind.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Price: May I take it that it will be possible for farmers and smallholders who have small herds and who have not a milk contract, but are rearing a few calves, perhaps buying a few more, making a little butter, and feeding the calves with the buttermilk, to qualify under this scheme for the purpose of eliminating tuberculosis from their herds and getting compensation for that? One would normally expect that those who would qualify under the scheme would have a milk contract under the Milk Marketing Board, but I understand the aim of those who are raising this point to be to secure that farmers and smallholders who are rearers but have no contract under the Milk Marketing Board will also be eligible.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I certainly think that they will be. The Clause is drawn very widely. It will be seen that it gives the Minister power to
pay to the owner of any herd of cattle in Great Britain such sums as the Minister thinks fit to expend for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the herd will be free from tuberculosis.
There is no reservation as regards milk contracts or anything of that kind.

10.27 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Who takes the responsibility for these payments after 1941? It cannot fall on the Milk Marketing Board, and apparently it will be rather difficult to find out where the money is to come from.

Mr. Ramsbotham: That is four years ahead, and I hardly feel inclined to prophesy at the moment.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Will the Milk Marketing Board, as the Bill now stands, be responsible for the payments in the case of these small herds where there are no contracts?

10.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Before 1941 we hope to have a long-term policy for milk which will include that matter.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am sure my right hon. Friend will forgive me for having forgotten that.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 21.—(Extension of powers of Minister as to slaughter.)

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Christie: I beg to move, in page 14, line 21, to leave out "prescribing scales for the payment of compensation."
This Amendment has been put down primarily for the purpose of gaining information and asking the Minister certain questions. Under the scheme for the eradication of tuberculosis, when the Minister starts setting up eradication areas, he proposes to examine the herds in those areas, and, if there are any herds in which tuberculosis is rife, he will order the slaughter of the animals which react to the tuberculin test, and pay compensation to the owner of those animals. This is a new form of compensation which we have never had before. I do not think the slaughtering of animals has ever been done by the Order of a Minister and compensated. What is exercising my hon. Friends and myself is that, while the present method of compensating the owner of a tuberculous cow is reasonable, because obviously the cow is in a bad state, when it comes to slaughtering these other animals, which are only condemned because they are reactors, you are dealing with an entirely different class of animals which may be very fine animals indeed, and you may cause very severe loss to their owner. There is another point. If the owner of these cows is in an eradication area, when he replaces the slaughtered animals he will have to buy attested cows. Therefore, again, he will be in quite a new position. Under the old slaughterings, under a Tuberculosis Order, it was only necessary to go to the nearest market and buy cows in order to fill up his cowshed. Now he has to go into a market where the number of animals is strictly limited and pay very high prices, and his position may be made exceedingly difficult, and it may


cause him very severe loss. What would satisfy us is an assurance that my hon. Friend is prepared to consider compensating farmers in this position in a very much more generous way than they have hitherto been compensated for the loss of tuberculous animals. We shall be very pleased with that, and still more pleased if he is going to accept the next Amendment because—

The Deputy-Chairman: We had better leave that until we come to it.

Mr. Christie: We shall be glad if my hon. Friend will say a few consoling words on the matter, which is of importance to the agricultural interest.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Am I right in this? As the Bill now stands, the Minister has to lay before Parliament any Order that he makes under Sub-section (3). He can also make an Order under Sub-section (2), but, if these words remain in, he does not have to lay it before the House.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: As the Sub-section reads now, every Order made by the Minister under this Clause prescribing the scales of payment for compensation must be laid before Parliament. The result of the Amendment would be that every Order under this Clause, whether it provided for slaughter in the case of any particular disease or for the payment of compensation, would have to be laid. The sole reason why an Order under the Subsection providing for the slaughter of animals because of a particular disease should not be laid is because for a long time Orders under the Diseases of Animals Act have been in force and have never been laid and have not required to be laid. If the Amendment were passed, we should get this anomalous position, that under the Diseases of Animals Act we need not lay Orders which under this Act we shall have to lay, so we shall be able to take our choice. If we did not want to lay an Order we could make it under the Diseases of Animals Act and, if we did not mind laying it, we could make it under this. I am not in a position to state what position the Committee would be desirous to take as regards the scales themselves. As the hon. Member mentioned, we are not in a position at the

present moment to forecast the scales, and as regards the amount of compensation, naturally we desire these arrangements to be as generous as possible. I cannot possibly lay down what the scales will be, or what increase, if any, there will be, but I can, however, give my hon. Friend the assurance that in the operation of them every sympathy for the farmer will be exercised.

Mr. Christie: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

10.36 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I beg to move, in page 14, line 23, at the end, to add:
and if either House of Parliament within the next twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it resolves that the order be annulled, it shall forthwith be void, but without prejudice to anything previously laid down thereunder or to the making of a new order.
It will be seen that I have put in the word "and" at the beginning of the Amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. The Minister accepted an Amendment on these lines on Clause 12, which I moved at the last sitting on the Bill, and I do not wish to repeat the argument I then made. I merely move the Amendment and hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment, and I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that the addition of the word "and" at the beginning improves it in sense and makes it relate quite clearly to Sub-section (4) of the Clause.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the Minister now in a position to give the Committee any indication of the constitutional aspect of this Amendment? I understand that the question was raised in the House a few days ago whether it was proper to allow the House of Lords a power of veto over financial questions. This proposed addition to the Clause gives the House of Lords such a power, and we may find ourselves at some future date in the strange position that the House of Lords desires to annul a Resolution passed by another Government in this House, whereas this House may have a majority in favour of that Resolution. The Committee ought to take note of the increasing number of Bills containing powers of veto


which might be exercised by either House. Everybody knows that the members of this party are greatly concerned as to the reception which their legislation might receive in another place. That concern is being substantially increased by the enormous administrative or executive power of veto being given to another place under this Bill. It means that, while the whole range of power to legislate by Order will be effective in the case of a Conservative Government, it might be rendered nugatory—

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that we can hang the whole constitutional point on this Amendment, which deals only with a narrow point.

Mr. Garro Jones: Can we hang the constitutional point on this Amendment in so far as it is applicable to this Amendment? I should like to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to inform the House on the complicated point of the power of vetoing financial proposals?

10.40 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I promised the House when we had a discussion on the cognate matter the other day, that I would make inquiries and study the question with a view to making a statement on the Report stage, and I also undertook to inform the hon. Member of the decision to which I had come. I have not yet concluded my study of the matter and I should like to make certain that the advice I give to the Committee is correct. I want to approach the question as a whole and not as affecting Government policy or any parties. I am advised that it is a question of how much emphasis any Measure lays on policy on the one hand and finance on the other. As far as this particular Amendment is concerned, it has nothing to do with anything else except orders prescribing scales for the payment of compensation; that is, compensation for the slaughter of animals affected with the particular diseases to which the Clause applies. To a very large extent it is a question of policy. It is a question of the disease which is to be eradicated and the payment of compensation arising therefrom. I will look at the question again, and if there is anything further to state on Report I will deal with it then. I have explained to the Committee how far my investigations have gone.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I put before the Minister one consideration which he might otherwise overlook? This power of veto might be utilised not only to reduce the scales of compensation to be paid but also to increase them. It is possible that another Government might bring forward scales of compensation which might be objected to in another place because they were too high, but they might very well be objected to because they were too low. We might have successive orders being rejected in another place because they were not high enough. Surely that would give members in another place control over financial proposals, which would be an innovation in our Constitution. Therefore, I hope the Minister will seriously take these points into account.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Eradication areas and attested areas.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: I should like to draw attention to paragraph (c)
prohibiting or regulating the movement of cattle into, out of or within any area which is for the time being an eradication area or an attested area.
We know very little about the Minister's intentions with regard to these eradication and attested areas, and I hope he will give us some further information about them. I can understand it being necessary to make regulations prohibiting or regulating the movement of cattle within an area or into an area but not out of it. Surely we want to encourage the sale of tubercular free cattle within these areas so that we can increase the number of herds which are free of disease and so increase the size and number of these areas. I should like to know the extent of the proposed area. Is it to be five square miles, or 100 square miles? What advantages are farmers in these areas to have? We want them to be anxious to be included in these areas, but it looks as if the disadvantages might outweigh the advantages and as if farmers might try


to avoid them. They are bound to put up with a great deal of control and it is very important that they should be given proper conditions.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Price: Can the Minister tell us how he proposes to deal with these eradication areas, whether it is to be on the basis of a county, or portion of a county, or on the basis of an area that covers portions of several counties? This is an important question. It would be easier to try to deal with these areas on a geographical basis, because types of farming vary from area to area both from a geographical and a physiographical standpoint. Difficulties might arise which would involve the separating of a certain part of certain counties and co-operation between the authorities in different counties with the Ministry's officials, for the purpose of establishing the areas. If the Minister could give us some idea of how the scheme would work it would be helpful.

Mr. Christie: When an eradication area is set up does it mean that only animals which have been tested will be permitted to go into them? What is the position of a farmer who wishes to take in store cattle for fattening purposes? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give us some information on that point.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) drew attention to the powers proposed to be taken to prohibit cattle being moved out of an eradication area. One reason which renders that power necessary is that we are building up free areas, and it may be necessary to prohibit the movement of cattle out of the area temporarily. A great show may be held in an area and some infection breaks out at the show, or it may be that, in a place where there are a great number of tubercular cattle someone wants to send cattle out of the area. In such cases it may be necessary to prohibit the moving out temporarily. I agree that the movement of cattle is to be desired and encouraged in the normal course of events, but we are controlling the temporary movement of cattle against the possibility of infection. The hon. and gallant Member asked what advantage anyone would have in an attested area. Of course there will be the fact that people

will try to keep their cattle free, and there is also no doubt that people who wish to reinforce their herds will go to the attested areas for them.
I cannot answer the question of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) with any precision. The idea is that we should start with a limited area where there is a low incidence of disease, gradually reduce the disease and then expand the area to the limit of practical possibility. I agree that there will be less confusion in controlling the movement of animals when dealing with one local authority instead of many, but the main criterion will be the presence or absence of disease. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) wanted me to give further particulars of the sort of area, whether it is to be small or big. My general answer is that we shall have to find by our survey where the clean cattle are before we can delimit the area as to size.

Mr. Christie: That was not quite my question. I asked whether all the animals within the area would have to be tested, and if so whether store cattle which are brought in will have to be tested also?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Undoubtedly all cattle brought into an attested area would have to be clean. The hon. Member will realise that we are trying to approach the question of tuberculosis in quite a new way. It has been considered as a milk disease alone and one which affects only the female of the bovine species. I am confident that it affects both sexes, and we shall make what orders are necessary to prevent the re-infection of an area by beef cattle coming in. I hope that one result of the scheme will be that there will be enough areas ultimately for them to supply themselves to a great extent with the stores they require.

Clauses 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Superannuation rights of veterinary inspectors.)

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 26, to leave out "retiring annuity," and to insert "superannuation allowance."
There are a number of these Amendments, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed them together. There is one to line 37 which I would move without the words "or person" at the end. These are drafting Amendments to bring this Bill in conformity with the rules laid down under the Local Government Act. It would be better to have the same verbiage used in this Bill and in the Local Government Superannuation Rules, 1936.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I have much pleasure in accepting these Amendments, and I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestions. I think that they are an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 16, line 27, leave out "annuity," and insert "allowance."—[Mr. Turton.]

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 16, line 30, after "and," to insert "by resolution."
The object of this Amendment is to enable the determination of a local authority under Sub-section (3, b) of this Clause to be on record. It is of importance that people should know if a local authority have passed this resolution, and by putting in "by resolution" that will be placed on record.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I think the suggestion of my hon. Friend will make for greater precision and clarity, and I accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 16, line 37, leave out "inspector's retiring allowance," and insert "superannuation allowance of such inspector."

In page 17, line 7, leave out "retiring annuity," and insert "superannuation allowance."—[Mr. Turton.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Expenses.)

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Ramsbotham: I beg to move, in page 18, line 2, after "section," to insert "or in the said Diseases of Animals Acts."
This Amendment is a drafting Amendment, but I think it requires a short explanation. Section 3, Sub-section (4) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1935, provides that additional inspectors, valuers and other persons may be appointed by the Minister. Sub-section (3) of Clause 26 of this Bill provides that all officers and servants employed by the Minister for the purpose of the execution of this part of this Act or any provisions of the Diseases of Animals Acts, 1894 to 1935, shall be appointed under Section 5 of the Board of Agriculture Act, 1889. Consequently, as the Committee will realise, such persons would become civil servants, and as I have explained on a previous Amendment, it is not intended that persons employed temporarily should be civil servants.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 4, after "servants," insert
and to any inspectors, valuers, or other persons appointed for the purpose aforesaid."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Consequential and minor Amendments.)

10.57 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 18, line 20, to leave out "consequential or."
This is a drafting Amendment intended to prepare for the redrafted Second Schedule which follows.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 33.—(Short title, extent and commencement.)

10.58 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 22, line 39, at the end, to add:
(4) As from the commencement of Part IV of this Act the enactments specified in the Third Schedule to this Act shall, except in so far as they extend to Northern Ireland, be repealed to the extent mentioned in the third column of that Schedule.
This is a drafting Amendment, which leads up to the redrafted Second Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Administration in Scotland to be subject to consultation with the Secretary of State and through his departments and officers.)
The provisions of Part IV of this Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, be administerd in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and, so far as may be, through the appropriate departments and officers under his control."—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause raises an issue which has often been debated in the House, but which, unless the Government can meet us, will require to be voted upon. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this Bill makes a substantial alteration in the administration of the law in Scotland. Hitherto we have had in Scotland control of the Milk and Dairies Act, the Attested Herds Scheme, Milk Orders and the Meat Inspection Act, and under this Measure these Acts are being taken away from the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland and handed over, for the first time in our recent history, to the Minister of Agriculture in England. I agree that disease has no boundaries. I agree that the county council area of control of disease is indefensible. I go further, and say that as far as national control of diseases is concerned, some unification steps must be taken to ensure that there shall be the same control, north of Carlisle and south of Carlisle. It is an impossible situation if in the event of disease breaking out at St. Boswells, for instance, cattle can be transferred from there to Carlisle or alternatively if the outbreak occurs at Carlisle, if cattle can be transferred to St. Boswells, causing the disease to radiate and spread. All that I and my hon. Friends willingly concede. But we come to another consideration. It is impossible in our view for a Minister to administer the affairs of a country 550 miles away from the seat of government. If we are to have anything in the nature of democracy, it is obviously desirable that we should have liaison control, or joint control, or joint

consultation of some kind or other between the very efficient Department of Agriculture that we now possess in Scotland and the Minister in England.
The new Clause asks for nothing unreasonable. We ask that the provisions of Part IV of this Measure shall in so far as they apply to Scotland be administered in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland and as far as may be through the appropriate Departments and officers under his control. The matter is left to consultation between the two Ministers. Both have Departments and at present both have officers in Scotland. We submit that a useless duplication of functions ought to be avoided. The Department of Agriculture in Scotland is run at least as efficiently as the Minister's Department in England and it ought not to have part of its functions taken away from it. The sentiment which exists in Scotland and which is growing, in favour of more local control in administration, ought not to be interfered with wantonly and foolishly. If the Minister or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could have averred that our Department of Agriculture in Scotland had not been run efficiently in the past, I could have understood the proposal in the Bill, but the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 29th June said:
The Milk and Dairies Act began to be applied in Scotland in 1925, whereas in England no similar steps were taken until the passing of the Milk Act: in 1934. Therefore, for 12 years we have now had a very efficient service in Scotland for the eradication of tuberculosis which has resulted in there being more attested herds and a smaller proportion of tubercular affected cows in non-attested herds, in Scotland than in England."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1937; cols. 1919–20, Vol. 325.]
That is a statement made a week ago by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, that they have an efficient Department and that it is more efficient than the Department has hitherto been in England, and now he comes along and says, in effect, that they are doing to scrap the Scottish Department and to hand away control of large sections of our agricultural machinery in Scotland to an English Minister. We ought to be given very definite and specific reasons in this Committee why we should agree to such a proposal. We have heard of none. We agree that disease has no frontiers, and we will do anything in reason, in unity with the English Minister, to stop disease.


We will co-operate with him in any way whatsoever, and all that we ask is that the Secretary of State for Scotland shall be called into consultation with the English Minister, that they shall jointly agree upon a policy, and that, in so far as Scotland is concerned, the officers and the machinery of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as far as may be, shall be used by the joint Ministers for the beneficent purposes of this Bill. I take no part in sentimental Jacobitism; the kind of sentiment that plays with propaganda for Scottish Home Rule leaves me cold. Therefore, there is all the more reason why we should insist upon efficient and democratic administration of our own affairs, and there is no justification offered in this Committee so far why we should hand away our veterinary services to the uncontrolled discretion of an English Minister. All that we ask is that the position that has hitherto been approved of by Parliament, and that has proved itself successful in the past, should be allowed to continue so far as consultation is concerned.
I know that the stock answer is that for 40 years the Diseases of Animals Acts have been administered from London. That is true, but the Milk and Dairies Act has not been and attacks upon tubercular cattle have not been, and we believe that more progress can be achieved by local control, local administration, and certainly by consultation between the Ministers responsible for the two countries, than can be achieved by this gigantic bureaucracy which the Government are seeking to set up and which, if approved of by this House, will do nothing, as far as I can see, but foment a lot of useless political agitation which can achieve no results so far as agriculture is concerned. I therefore beg the Government, even at this late hour, to agree to the very reasonable terms of this Clause, that there shall be consultation between the two Ministers and that there shall be no overlapping of Departments.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I should like to support the plea that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has not raised any academic matter, but a point which is of considerable concern to the local authorities in Scotland, many of which have made representations to us about the working of Part IV of this Bill.

In my own constituency and in a good many other cities in Scotland the administration of the Milk and Dairy Act of 1914 and the amending Act of 1922 has been shared in the past between the Department of Health and the local health committees, and that is a partnership that in the past has worked reasonably well. For the first time in the administration of these Acts which solely concern Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, the head of a purely English Department, is to be brought in. The veterinary inspector, who is the essential person in the administration of those Acts, is to be appointed from England. Even if it is not possible to accept this new Clause, I would ask for an assurance that if the veterinary inspector is to be transferred from a centre like Dundee, he should only be transferred as far as Edinburgh, so that the co-operation which has prevailed in the past will prevail in the future.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Barr: In supporting this proposed Clause, I would recall the words that fell from the Under-Secretary for Scotland on 29th June, when he said that they were greatly concerned that administration in Scotland should be in full accordance with Scottish opinion. This is one real and practical way in which the administration in these matters can be brought into line with Scottish opinion. It is true that we were promised a special officer in Edinburgh, but he is to be under the English Department; he will owe allegiance to an English overlord. I have in my hand the report of the Committee of Investigation of the National Veterinary Medical Association of Great Britain and Ireland. This Bill is founded in part on that report, and it speaks time and time again of the constant friction that there has been beween full time officers and practitioners. Unless something like this is done in the way of joint administration, I am positive that there will be a good deal of friction.
The Minister has himself confessed to the admitted high standard of this service in Scotland. Although the Milk and Dairies Act came in for England and Scotland in 1914, it only began to apply in 1925 to Scotland and in 1934 to England. The machinery is there, and there is a fear among local authorities that unless they have this contact with Scottish control and administration there may be a


danger of the surplus of veterinary officers in Scotland being removed into England and a danger of the falling away of the service. The general trend of matters in Scotland has been towards fuller self-government and devolution in all matters of this kind. The Diseases of Animals Act has been administered as a matter for the whole United Kingdom for 40 years, but even in the original consolidated Diseases of Animals Act of 1894 there were at least six sections which set up special machinery for Scotland. A Milk and Dairies Act was passed for England in 1914, but on the very same day, 10th August, there was also passed a special Act for Scotland, differing in many matters of detail and in some important points from the English Act. It dealt with veterinary inspections, inspections of dairies and other premises, the tuberculin test and the like. We have never objected to certain diseases being dealt with on a United Kingdom basis.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member seems to be labouring under somewhat of a misapprehension. He is basing a large part of his case on the Milk and Dairies Act of 1914, but veterinary services are less important under that Act than sanitary services.

Mr. Barr: That does not impair my argument in the slightest. It shows that there was differentiation in the case of sanitary inspectors. I need not go into all the implications and cross-currents which come into these matters. I was about to say when interrupted that even with the widest form of self-government for Scotland we should still admit that there were certain services which would have to be unified. Others could be under the control of England in the one case and Scotland in the other. That has been the whole trend of the movement in Scotland, both as regards services for human beings and for animals, and this is a backward trend. I should like to ask how far local authorities have given their consent to this proposal in the Bill, to what extent they were taken by surprise by it, and whether it is not true that in many parts of Scotland there is an uprising of the local authorities under the fear that their local services will be disturbed and injured. I am quite willing on occasion to oppose the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary,

and to point out the weaknesses of their administration, but I am not willing to see them slighted, as they are by this proposal. The whole object of the new Clause is to ensure that Scottish services as they are at present shall be maintained in full measure, in co-operation with the services which are being set up for the United Kingdom.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I suggested when this matter was raised on the Financial Resolution that a principle was at stake and I am inclined to maintain that view. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in replying to the Amendment which was then moved, offered us the pledge that there would be appointed to sit in Edinburgh an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture who would be inside the Scottish Office itself, as it were, and on that offer I was induced to withdraw my Amendment. On reflection I am bound to say that I do not feel quite so happy about it, and I wish to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman who has moved this new Clause. I say nothing further about efficiency; that was covered on the previous occasion and it has been dealt with again by the right hon. Gentleman. It is admitted that the standard of veterinary service in Scotland is high, and I do not expect that it will be made any higher by the Bill.
I pass to the other question, which is important. To put an English officer in Edinburgh is not sufficient to meet the views of the Scotsmen who desire to maintain their own system of health services. It is offering ammunition to the most extreme exponents of separate government, and of Scottish Nationalism. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cranks."] I quite agree. It creates a precedent. It will be said: "If you in Scotland are supposed to be no longer able to look after the health of your cattle, one day someone will come along and say that you are no longer able to look after the health of your children." I think that is a reasonable point. In this Bill we are about to centralise, under London, the services for the improvement of the health of our cattle; if that is done, it will be a plain precedent which may be used in future years for a further measure of centralised health or education, or other service, now administered by Scotland. It is the kind of argument which can be used by the cranks, who are now playing Old Harry with Scottish interests and


doing real harm to the country. Why is it not possible for Scottish Office officials to operate this scheme in Scotland? That is what is asked for in the Amendment. Why could not the Minister give us an assurance of constant consultation between the two countries, and the working of the scheme through the actual machinery that now exists? That would be meeting the legitimate and convinced desire of Scottish people that that system of government should be maintained.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) now appears in the role of a very hurt and injured Scotsman at the treatment which the Government have meted out to him. He feels that he has been unfairly dealt with—

Mr. Stewart: I did not say so.

Mr. Davidson: —on the Government's pledge for appointing an agricultural officer in Edinburgh. I would remind him that I asked the Under-Secretary whether this officer in Edinburgh would still be controlled by the central office in London, and he replied very definitely in the affirmative. The rebel of East Fife, who presented unloaded pistols to the Government, insisted upon withdrawing his Amendment. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) showed clearly that our services are second to none. We have an agricultural service in Scotland which, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself, is much better than the English service. Does the hon. Member for East Fife say that those who wish to retain that service are cranks? We at least on these benches know that there is an opinion in Scotland, within the ranks of constituents of hon. Members opposite, that Scottish affairs are not dealt with wisely and capably in this House. In Glasgow we appoint five veterinary officers. They are appointed in consultation and in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who acts to-day as the Minister of Agriculture in Scotland. The local authorities in Scotland have always found that the appointment of these officers in conjunction with the Secretary of State, and with the local people's knowledge of their qualifications, has been eminently satisfactory. Therefore, I would like to have some assurance

from the Government that they will accept this Clause.
I would like to ask the Under-Secretary in what way the Government think they will give satisfaction in Scotland on this question. Take the question of the appointment of officers in the very far North of Scotland. Surely the Government will not say that the knowledge that can be obtained in Scotland with regard to Scottish officers can also be gained at the central headquarters in England. I would ask the Government, even at this late hour, to concede this point, and not to look at the question from the point of view of narrow Scottish nationalism, but from the point of view of having a good agricultural organisation set up throughout the whole country; and, where that organisation is already as near perfection as can be, to encourage it by leaving it to the various authorities, acting in consultation with their own Secretary of State, to carry out that service as it has been carried out in the past.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: There is one point in connection with the proposed new Clause to which I want to call attention. The Clause appears to me to be purely permissive. My hon. Friend knows very well that it is a question of functions. We are afflicted in Scotland with that particular scourge which is known as grass sickness. It does not attack the English—I do not know why. I would like some reassurance from my hon. Friend with regard to it. The other day the Government announced a considerable grant for research and investigation into this disease, which is, as I say, a scourge in Scotland. Surely some form of words to correspond to the Clause might be necessary in order to secure that the research that may be carried out with that money shall be devoted to prosecuting inquiries into the cause and the cure of this disease. It is not necessary to assume that the problems confronting Scottish and English agriculture are identical in every case. They are very different. A certain amount of flexibility as between the two services is very desirable. The Clause is purely permissive and gives the Secretary of State and his officers power to deal with problems in Scotland from a Scottish point of view. I should welcome some assurance that where interests vary we can get a Scottish solicitor for a purely Scottish problem.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am most grateful to the hon. Member opposite for the warm tribute that he paid to the efficiency of the Scottish Office and I shall not fail to remind him of it when we discuss our Agricultural Estimates. As far as it applies to the Milk and Dairies and Tuberculosis Orders, I do not know whether it is because the people who carry it out are better or because it has been in existence for 12 years as against three in England. Whichever is the explanation I cannot see any reason why the efficiency of that service should be reduced by this centralisation because it will be administered in the various districts by the same individuals. This is a subject to which the Government gave very prolonged and careful thought before these proposals were framed and all the arguments that have been put forward were very much present in our minds before we came to our final decision. In replying to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) we are bound to be in this difficulty, that if, as he said, the only purpose of his Clause was to ensure that there should be proper consultation, of course the Clause is unnecessary because there is bound to be consultation of the closest kind on matters that concern the Department of Health or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland between those who are administering this service and those who are responsible for those Departments. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would hardly be possible to put into a Statute a Clause saying that the functions of one Government Department should be carried out through the officials of another Department who are not properly responsible in the House of Commons for the way in which those functions are carried out. This Clause says that in so far as they apply in Scotland these provisions shall be administered "so far as may be." That is a very vague phrase to put into an Act of Parliament and it would not be fair on the Scottish Office to impose upon them certain things for which they would not be responsible in this House.
Let us see what it is that is actually being done. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the only functions

that are being taken away by the Bill are the administration of the Milk and Dairies Act and tests upon tubercular cattle. They are being taken away from local authorities both in England and in Scotland. The question is not whether they should be taken away from persons who are at present carrying them on—I think the right hon. Gentleman was agreed that you ought not to have a separate service for each county—but that, having taken them away from the local authorities, should they all be placed under one United Kingdom service, or should you have one service in London and another service in Edinburgh? That brings us at once to the Diseases of Animals Acts, of which the right hon. Gentleman said he did not disapprove and which is a United Kingdom service. It would be quite impracticable to have the Diseases of Animals Acts administered as a United Kingdom service and, incidental to that, the administration of the Milk and Dairies Act and the measures to eradicate the serious disease of tuberculosis run by a different department side by side. That would, obviously, lead to a great deal of unnecessary delay and overlapping, and what we found was that the demand for a separate service, if it is to be carried out, must mean that the whole of the Diseases of Animals Acts should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, which would be a far more revolutionary change than that which is proposed in the Bill. The Diseases of Animals Acts have always been a United Kingdom service, and the fact is that we have not in Scotland the necessary staff or the necessary training to carry out the whole of those Acts. It may interest the Committee to know that only a week ago an oubreak of foot-and-mouth disease was reported from Berwick, and the line that will have to be drawn round the infected area will include some parts of England and some parts of Scotland. It must be obvious to the Committee that a divided service would detract certainly from the promptitude and probably from the efficiency of measures which are necessary to deal with a situation of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that he was not quite as happy as he apparently was when he withdrew his Amendment a week ago, but I was unable to discover from his speech any reason


for the increasing depth of his dejection. He appears now to put his case not on any ground of usefulness, but simply on the ground of what he called legitimate pride.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I did not press the case of efficiency, because I had already done so on a previous occasion, and it was put by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wedderburn: His reason now is one regretting the decision of last week. This would encourage the extreme opponents of Home Rule. People would say, "If you cannot manage to look after the health of your cattle, how can you look after the health of our people?" I suggest to my hon. Friend that it is not quite the same thing. When we have an outbreak of influenza or scarlet fever, we do not have to deal with it by slaughtering all the infected persons or by ringing them around so that no one is allowed to move.

Mr. Johnston: In outbreaks of smallpox or cholera there has to be a ring established round about the source of the disease.

Mr. Wedderburn: I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for East Fife that if he is going to object to the proposal simply because it may arouse the opposition of what we call cranks, he will have to extend his opposition to every proposal brought forward in this House. Let him remember the occasion when he had a Scottish Home Rule opponent, who forfeited his deposit three times over. Therefore, I do not think that he need entertain any timidity on that score.
I have already gone as far as is practicable towards meeting the purpose of the Clause, when I indicated that we are willing to appoint a separate veterinary officer in Edinburgh who would reside there, keep in touch with the officials of

the Scottish Office, and make it his business to carry out our intention of increasing the efficiency of the Scottish services. I do not see why it should be considered any sort of derogation of the Scottish services that that should be done. There are other services, United Kingdom services, which are carried out from Whitehall, such as the Ministry of Labour. No one suggests that we ought to have a separate Ministry of Labour for Scotland. I suggest to the Committee that when they put aside feelings which I cannot help thinking are based on little more than sentiment, there is no reasonable case for the separation of the services. I hope that I have succeeded in showing that an amount of consultation which will be useful and necessary must in any event take place.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Before we take this matter to a vote, I should like to say that I voted with the Government last week when the proposal was before the House, because I agreed with my right hon. Friend that there ought to be, as far as is humanly possible, consistent with there being no derogation of Scottish administration, an absolutely united service. I should have thought that the Minister could have accepted this new Clause if only to satisfy the Scottish Members. I hope that even now he will see his way to make some approach towards meeting the sentiments which have been expressed, without in any way weakening the determination to eradicate disease both in Scotland and in this country. Despite what the Under-Secretary has said, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, while not going the whole way desired by the Scottish Members, will accept the spirit of what is asked.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 186.

Division No. 279.]
AYES.
[11.45 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Cape, T.
Frankel, D.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Charleton, H. C.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Dalton, H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Ammon, C. G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)


Banfield, J. W.
Dobbie, W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Barnes, A. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Grenfell, D. R.


Barr, J.
Ede, J. C.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Buchanan, G.
Foot, D. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.




Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
McEntee, V. La T.
Simpson, F. B.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Holdsworth, H.
Marshall, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jagger, J.
Maxton, J.
Stephen, C.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, W.
White, H. Graham


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Kirby, B. V.
Pritt, D. N.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Lathan, G.
Ridley, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.



Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Rowson, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sexton, T. M.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Eastwood, J. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Eckersley, P. T.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Albery, Sir
Irving Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Apsley, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Patrick, C. M.


Assheton, R.
Everard, W. L.
Peake, O.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Fleming, E. L.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Petherick, M.


Baillis, Sir A. W. M.
Furness, S. N.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balniel, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Ramsbotham, H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beechman, N. A.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rankin, Sir R.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gritten, W.
G. Howard Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guy, J. C. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannah, I. C.
Rowlands, G.


Brass, Sir W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Bromfield, W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Salmon, Sir I.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Bull, B. B.
Hepworth, J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Butler, R. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Selley, H. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Spens, W. P.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Storey, S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd.,S.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Keeling, E. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Turton, R. H.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Leighton, Major B. E. P. Ward,
Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Cox, H. B. T.
Levy, T.
Warrender, Sir V.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Liddall, W. S.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Critchley, A.
Loftus, P. C.
Watt, G. S. H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Crooke, J. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wells, S. R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McKie, J. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Cross, R. H.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Crossley, A. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Markham, S. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Marsden, Commander A.
Wise, A. R.


Dawson, Sir P.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


De Chair, S. S
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wragg, H.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.



Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Duggan, H. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Mr. Munro.


Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and minor amendments.)

11.53 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 24, line 4, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 7.
This and the Amendments which follow are drafting Amendments consequential on the moving of a new Third Schedule which appears later on.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 24, leave out line 9, and insert:
In section seventeen for 'the words the execution of the sections of' there shall be substituted the words 'their powers under'.

In line 14, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 8, on page 25.

In page 25, line 31, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 35.

In page 26, line 7, leave out from the beginning, to the end of the Schedule.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Enactments Repealed.)


Session and Chapter.
Short Title.
Extent of Repeal.


57 & 58 Vict. c. 57.
The Diseases of Animals Act, 1894
In section seven, in subsection (3), the words "out of money provided by Parliament"; in section seventeen the words "on account of pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease, or swine-fever"; in section eighteen, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the words "on account of pleuro-pneumonia, foot-and-mouth disease or swine-fever"; section nineteen; in section twenty, in subsection (1) the words "or of a local authority," and the words "or the local authority, as the case may be"; in subsection (2), the words "or of a local authority," the words "or to the local authority, as the case may be," the words "or the local authority," and the words from "and any money," to the end of the subsection; in subsection (3), the words "or a local authority," and the words "or the local authority, as the case may be"; in subsection (4), the words "or of a local authority," the words "or the local authority, as the case

—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This Schedule sets out more tidily and clearly the Amendments in existing enactments and legislation as a result of this Bill.

Schedule read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NIGERIA (REMISSION OF PAYMENTS) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th June],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Question again proposed.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Can the Noble Lord tell the House what is the state of progress with regard to this subject? Has a Resolution been passed in the other place? Moreover, suppose we wish to make an Amendment here, are we free to do so?

11.59 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for having given me private notice of the fact that he was going to raise this point, which is, of course, a perfectly reasonable one to raise. As my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary explained on a previous stage, this is in a sense a novel procedure, but it is a procedure which is entailed by the Government of India Act as it stands. There is no other possible way by which effect could be given to this particular part of the Government of India Act, with which no doubt the House is familiar. In regard to the specific point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, the position is this. This Prayer to His Majesty has been passed by another place in exactly the form in which it appears on the Order Paper to-night. It would have been open to another place to amend the Prayer, in which case it would have been open to this House to accept the Prayer in the form in which it came back from the Lords, or to reject it. It is also open to this House at this stage and at the previous stage to make any Amendments in the Order which it thinks desirable. There is, I think, a misapprehension in thinking that this procedure in any way ties the hands of this House. It does not do so. The whole object of the procedure is to enable the House to make Amendments if it so desires.

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Benn: I am allowed to speak again only with the permission of the House, and I would make only this comment.

The fact is that if we amend this Order to-night, the whole procedure breaks down. It is a shoddy procedure. There is no machinery for controlling these things by Resolution between the two Houses. In the matter of Bills we have a Committee which draws up reasons and sends them to the Lords, and it is a very ancient procedure. Here, however, there is no procedure of the kind. if we were to pass an Amendment to this Order, the only thing another House could do would be to rescind their Motion for an humble Address and start the whole business over again. I mention this because it is illustrative of a grave defect in the Act which was put in on purpose by the Government in the last Parliament; that is to say, a number of functions which were performed as executive functions by the Secretary of State as an executive officer constitutionally subject to this House alone have now been made subject to both Houses. That means that if another Government came which had not the support of another House, it would be gravely hampered in its administration. It is a grave defect in the structure of the Act, which is illustrated by the fact that at this stage there is in fact no machinery for carrying out Amendments as the Noble Lord suggests.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Federal Court) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th June],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Question again proposed.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th June],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Question again proposed.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Indian Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [28th June],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Question again proposed.

Question put.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker proceeded to collect the voices, and declared that the "Ayes" had it.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. For what reason are the "Ayes" and "Noes" asked for, when obviously, after persistent cries of "No" from this side of the House, no notice was taken of them?

Mr. Speaker: I did take considerable notice of them, but they appeared to me to die down.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (Adaptation of Laws) Supplementary Order, 1937, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1936, as extended by the Statutory Gas Companies (Electricity Supply Powers) Act, 1925, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, to increase the capital and borrowing powers of the Uckfield Gas and Electricity Company, which was presented on the 21st day of June, 1937, be approved."—[Captain Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — METHYLATED SPIRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.